ssh_execute

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'execute command'. It omits side effects, return behavior, error handling, or authentication needs. Schema provides some constraints but description adds nothing beyond a generic statement.

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?

While the single sentence is brief, it is under-informative for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness; here the description is too minimal.

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?

Given the complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description fails to cover return values, error handling, prerequisites, or behavior. It is completely inadequate for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't mention parameters or their purposes. The description is too generic to provide additional semantic value.

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 action (execute command) and the resource (remote SSH server). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_execute_sudo and ssh_execute_group by being specific to plain 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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like ssh_execute_sudo, ssh_command_alias, or ssh_execute_group. The description lacks any context for tool selection.

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