Run Remote Command

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

The description adds one behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Reuses your local OpenSSH config and keys.' This hints at authentication prerequisites. However, it does not elaborate on effects (e.g., arbitrary side effects, output handling) beyond what the annotations already imply (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). No contradiction exists.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, and the second provides useful context about configuration. No filler or redundancy.

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?

While the schema covers parameters and annotations indicate destructive/open-world behavior, the description omits return value semantics (exit codes, stdout/stderr capture) and does not explain how the tool handled failures or timeouts. It is adequate for a simple exec tool but leaves gaps given no output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond 'command' and 'SSH host/keys'; it merely repeats general intent. The schema already documents all six parameters adequately.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a shell command on the configured SSH host.' This distinguishes it from sibling file-operation and diagnostic tools, which focus on specific resource types rather than arbitrary command execution.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the 'configured SSH host' and 'local OpenSSH config and keys,' but does not explicitly state scenarios, prerequisites, or contrast with siblings like remote_ssh_read_text or remote_ssh_list_dir. This leaves the agent to infer usage.

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