ssh_session_start

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the session is persistent and state-preserving, but omits lifecycle facts: that it must be driven by ssh_session_send and torn down with ssh_session_close, whether sessions are resource-limited, or what happens on reconnect.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and its key differentiator (persistent state) come first.

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 session-lifecycle tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does but not how the returned session is used or closed. An agent still needs the sibling tools to understand the full lifecycle, leaving a real 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 description coverage is 100%, so cols, rows, and connectionId are already documented in the schema (including defaults and the default-connection routing behavior). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: start a persistent interactive PTY session on a remote host. The qualifiers '持久交互式' and '跨多次输入维持环境状态' implicitly separate it from the one-shot ssh_exec sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 clear context for when to use it — when an agent needs an interactive session whose state survives multiple inputs. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming ssh_exec/ssh_connect as alternatives, so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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