run-ssh-command

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral constraints: fixed target, no access to other hosts or local filesystem, and a confirmation workflow that requires explicit per-turn consent. It even warns against assuming consent from an earlier command, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Standing rule' segment clearly organizes usage guidance. Every sentence adds important information, though some repetition exists (e.g., 'nothing else' and 'only thing it can ever do').

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?

The description is comprehensive for a tool with no output schema and a fixed target: it covers capabilities, constraints, execution safety, and user consent protocol. It fully prepares an agent to use the tool correctly without needing additional external context.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema by explaining the confirmed parameter's workflow: preview with confirmed=false, execute only after user approval in the specific turn. This enhances understanding of how the parameters interplay.

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 states the tool's exact function: 'Run exactly one command over SSH on the fixed target ubuntu@203.0.113.10 and nothing else.' It clearly defines the verb, resource, and scope, and explicitly distinguishes itself from hypothetical alternatives by noting it cannot reach other hosts or run local commands.

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 provides an explicit standing rule: always show the user the exact command, get explicit go-ahead before calling, and use confirmed=false to preview. It also clarifies when not to use the tool (e.g., for local commands) by stating the tool cannot do those things.

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