Run a remote command with stored secrets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses allowlisting, provisioned-key auth, secret interpolation via stdin rather than argv, per-exact-command approval, and output redaction. It still omits timeout behavior, error handling, and local/remote destructive effects.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by key security constraints. There is no wasted wording.

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?

For a complex, annotation-free tool, it covers the critical security and approval constraints an agent must know before calling it. Gaps remain around the optional timeout_ms parameter and the exact return/output shape beyond redaction.

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 only 25%. The description repeats the env secret-interpolation detail already in the schema, adds a little host context via 'allowlisted', but leaves command and especially timeout_ms semantics unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: runs a shell command on an allowlisted SSH host using the provisioned key. This clearly distinguishes it from the secret_* and web_* siblings.

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?

Gives operational context such as the allowlisted host and per-command approval requirement, implying when it is usable. However, it does not explicitly compare it with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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