ssh_execute_group

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it mutates remote state, is not idempotent, handles per-server security independently, and explains the effect of stopOnError. It also details strategy behaviors, timeouts, and cwd defaults, providing a thorough safety and runtime profile.

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?

Each sentence conveys essential information without waste. The description flows from core action to membership, behavioral caveats, strategies, and defaults, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, behavior under failures, idempotency, execution strategies, and parameter defaults. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool, including handling edge cases like readonly servers.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the cwd default (default_dir), the delay semantics for rolling strategy, and the fixed 30000 ms timeout (which is not a parameter but a runtime default). This goes beyond the schema.

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: running a command on every server in a group and returning a per-server report. It also distinguishes from the sibling ssh_execute by explicitly focusing on group-wide execution and clarifying how groups are formed (ssh_group_manage plus config).

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (for group execution) and describes important behaviors like best-effort execution and stopOnError. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for single-server execution, but the group-specific language makes the intended use obvious.

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