ssh_multi_exec

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

Discloses parallel execution, per-host result return, and policy check before fan-out. With no annotations, this adds useful behavioral context. However, lacks details on partial failures or error handling, preventing a top score.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers key aspects for a parallel execution tool (parallelism, policy, alternative to single exec). Missing explicit description of output format (e.g., how results per host are structured) and no output schema, leaving a minor gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add much beyond schema (e.g., no elaboration on hosts/command format). Since schema is comprehensive, the description's contribution is minimal, earning a 4.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Execute a command on multiple remote hosts in parallel'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling ssh_exec by explicitly stating 'Use this instead of calling ssh_exec multiple times'.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use ('Use this instead of calling ssh_exec multiple times — it's faster and shows results side by side') and mentions policy constraints (whitelist/blacklist). No explicit when-not, but the directive is clear and sufficient.

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