ssh_exec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and return, without disclosing critical behaviors such as command execution privileges, security risks, exit code handling, or side effects on the remote host. The existence of an 'allow_dangerous' flag in the schema is not mentioned.

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, straightforward sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core action. However, it is overly terse given the tool's complexity, bordering on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

This is a remote shell execution tool with no output schema and no annotation support, yet the description provides no detail on authentication, security guards, timeout behavior, or return format. It is severely incomplete for an operation with significant security implications.

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 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It only hints at 'command' being a shell command, while host, shell, timeout, environment, and allow_dangerous parameters remain unexplained. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 action ('execute a shell command'), the resource ('on a remote host'), and the outcome ('return the result'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_exec_batch by specifying 'a single shell command' (一条 shell 命令).

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 phrasing 'a single shell command' implies use for individual commands vs. batch operations (ssh_exec_batch), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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