ssh-retry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully inform. It states automatic retry and backoff on failure but does not detail what constitutes failure (exit code vs. output patterns), nor does it mention side effects or session behavior. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 7 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case. However, it omits details on retry behavior (e.g., when retries stop, maxRetries impact) and session context, which could be useful for an agent.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context ('flaky network commands') but does not provide additional meaning beyond schema fields like 'command' or 'backoff'. It fails to explain how parameters like 'failPattern' and 'successPattern' interact with retry logic.

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 verb 'Execute' and the resource 'command with automatic retry and backoff on failure'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh-run by specifying the retry and backoff behavior, making it clear that this tool is for unreliable 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 mentions it is 'useful for flaky network commands or services that need time to start', giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., ssh-run for one-shot execution).

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