remote_session_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: sessions remain alive until closed or server exit, SSH state persists, and WinRM uses a reusable PSRP runspace. This goes beyond the schema but omits details like behavior on duplicate session names or error conditions.

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 three sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary action and then adding succinct behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and high-level behavior, but with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the lack of parameter explanations leaves the agent without enough context to correctly populate the connection object and optional fields. Adequate but incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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% and the description provides almost no per-parameter guidance. It hints that 'shell' relates to SSH vs WinRM but does not explain 'profile' or the structure of the 'connection' object. This is a significant gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 opens with a clear verb ('Open') and specific resource ('named persistent SSH shell or WinRM PowerShell runspace'), immediately distinguishing this from sibling tools like remote_session_execute and remote_session_close. It clearly states the tool's core function of creating a named session.

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 description explains the session's lifetime and persistence semantics, giving clear context for when to use this tool (when a persistent session with retained state is needed). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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