ssh_execute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool executes commands and returns stdout, stderr, and exit code, which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as permission requirements, whether commands run in a shell, potential side effects (e.g., file modifications), error handling for timeouts or connection issues, or rate limits. For a tool that executes commands on remote hosts, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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—two sentences that directly state the tool's function and return values without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.

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?

Given the complexity of executing commands on SSH hosts (a potentially destructive operation), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover safety aspects, error scenarios, or detailed behavioral traits. While it mentions return values, it doesn't describe their format or implications. For a tool with no structured safety hints and significant operational risks, this description falls short of providing adequate context for safe and effective use.

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 already documents all three parameters (connection_id, command, timeout) with their types, descriptions, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 action ('Execute a command') and resource ('on a connected SSH host'), and specifies the return values (stdout, stderr, exit code). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_connect or ssh_disconnect by focusing on command execution rather than connection management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ssh_check_background or ssh_list_background, which might also involve command execution in different contexts.

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 by mentioning 'connected SSH host' and referencing 'connection_id from ssh_connect', suggesting it should be used after establishing a connection. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_check_background (for background commands) or serial tools for serial communication, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the connection requirement.

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