remote_bash_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: persistent shell state, auth preferences (prefer key-based auth), and default connection_id format. It lacks details on failure behavior but adds significant context beyond basic connect semantics.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a persistence note, and a parameter list. The parameter list is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions, though it adds length.

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 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, persistence, and all parameter semantics. Output schema exists, so lack of return value description is acceptable.

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?

The description provides per-parameter explanations for all 7 parameters, which the schema lacks (0% description coverage). This fully compensates for the schema's sparse parameter documentation, adding meaning such as defaults and auth preferences.

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 it connects to a remote host via SSH with a persistent shell session, which is a specific verb+resource. It also mentions that shell state persists across subsequent remote_bash_execute calls, distinguishing it from sibling tools like remote_bash_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 mentions that shell state persists across subsequent remote_bash_execute calls, implying this is the prerequisite for executing remote commands. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or offer alternative connection methods, but the context is clear.

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