ssh-session-watch

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

The description discloses the key behaviors: long-polling (waiting for changes) and rendering a dashboard. However, it does not elaborate on whether the tool is read-only, if it has side effects, or any rate limits. Given no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every part of the sentence is meaningful, with no wasted words.

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 has 10 configurable parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level understanding but lacks details on what the dashboard looks like, the response format, or the meaning of 'inline actor markers'. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No extra parameter semantics are provided.

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 action ('Long-poll an SSH PTY session') and its outcome ('render a terminal-style dashboard with inline actor markers'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh-session-read (which reads output) and ssh-session-send (which sends input).

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 usage for monitoring a session with a dashboard, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ssh-session-read or ssh-session-history. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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