ssh_multi_exec

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions parallel execution and per-host results, but it does not address critical aspects such as required authentication, potential destructiveness (the command could be destructive), error handling (e.g., behavior if some hosts fail), or performance implications. The description is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects or safety requirements.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core function and then provide a usage recommendation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides essential purpose and usage guidance but falls short on completeness. It does not describe the return format ('results per host' is vague), authentication handling (though schema covers some), or behavior on failure. The description is acceptable but leaves some gaps that an agent would need to infer or learn from experience.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what is already in the schema; it focuses on the tool's overall function. The description's mention of 'results per host' provides mild context for interpreting the output but does not enhance parameter understanding. Thus, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Execute a command on multiple remote hosts in parallel.' It specifies the verb ('execute'), the resource ('command on multiple remote hosts'), and the mode ('in parallel, returns results per host'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'ssh_exec' by noting it's faster and shows results side by side, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool 'instead of calling ssh_exec multiple times' and explains why ('it's faster and shows results side by side'). This provides clear guidance on when to use it versus an alternative. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for single hosts, where ssh_exec might be simpler), which would make it a 5.

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