remote_bash_execute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavior: shell state persists across calls, connection_id defaults to the most recent, and timeout has a default. However, it omits potential dangers of executing arbitrary commands (e.g., destructiveness) and does not describe output/error handling, which limits transparency.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a note about state persistence, and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 command execution tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, shell state, parameter defaults, and the requirement of an established connection. Given the output schema handles return values, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It fully explains each one: command (shell command), connection_id (which connection, optional, defaults to recent), and timeout (max seconds, default 120). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'Execute a command on a remote host via an established SSH connection.' This uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (remote host), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_bash_connect or tmux_send_keys.

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 the tool requires an existing SSH connection ('via an established SSH connection') and notes the persistence of shell state for the same connection_id, which signals usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some guidance implicit.

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