remote_session_execute

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the call blocks until the command finishes. It does not disclose what a timeout does to a running command, whether output is truncated, or what privileges the command runs under.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with the blocking semantic appended where it matters. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a destructive, open-world tool with 0% schema coverage on two optional parameters, the definition is too thin: an agent cannot know what timeout means in practice or how output_limit affects results, which directly impacts correct invocation.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It clarifies that 'name' refers to a session name and that 'command' is what gets executed, but 'timeout' (default 3600) and 'output_limit' (default null) are never mentioned, leaving their units and truncation behavior undocumented anywhere.

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 names a specific verb ('Run a command') and a specific target ('a named persistent session'), plus the blocking behavior ('wait for completion'). This distinguishes it implicitly from one-shot execution siblings like remote_execute and async siblings like remote_job_start, though it never names an alternative 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?

'Inside a named persistent session' implies the prerequisite that a session must already exist (via remote_session_open), and 'wait for completion' implies synchronous use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to remote_execute, remote_job_start, or remote_run_program, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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