ssh_check_background

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors: checking if a command is still running and returning the latest output. However, it lacks details on error handling, timeout behavior, output format, or whether this operation is read-only or has side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and what it returns. Every word serves a clear purpose, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness about what the tool does. However, it lacks information about return value structure, error conditions, and how it integrates with the broader SSH tool ecosystem beyond the implied connection to 'ssh_execute_background'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'task_id' and background commands or providing examples of 'tail_lines' usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking status and retrieving output from a background command. It specifies the verb ('check status and get output') and resource ('background command'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ssh_list_background' or 'ssh_execute'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by mentioning 'background command' and referencing 'task_id from ssh_execute_background', suggesting it's used after initiating a background task. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ssh_list_background' or 'ssh_execute' for non-background commands.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.