ssh_execute_group

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

The description comprehensively discloses behavioral traits: mutates remote state, not idempotent, best-effort, per-server failure handling, strategy modes, timeout, and default cwd. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden.

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 concise (two sentences) with the core action in the first sentence and detailed elaboration in the second. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (6 params, no output schema), the description covers most essential aspects: mutation, idempotency, failure behavior, strategies, timeout, and defaults. It mentions the return type ('per-server success or failure report') but could be slightly more explicit about output structure. Still, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context beyond schema, such as default timeout (30000 ms), default cwd behavior, and the semantics of stopOnError in a best-effort context. This aids correct parameter understanding.

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 runs a command on every server in a group and returns a per-server report. It distinguishes from siblings like ssh_execute (single server) and ssh_execute_sudo (sudo variant) by specifying 'group execution' and 'per-server report'.

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?

It explains best-effort behavior, per-server policy evaluation, and strategy options, helping agents understand when to use it for group commands. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like ssh_execute_sudo.

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