ssh_process_manager

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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as destructive side effects (killing processes), permission requirements, or that certain actions require a PID. It simply lists actions without explaining consequences.

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 a single concise sentence, which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it could be slightly more structured to highlight required parameters or action-specific details.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It misses key context such as default values for sortBy, limit, and signal, the fact that pid is required for kill/info, and what the output returns.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it lists three actions but does not clarify the difference between 'list' and 'info' or the default behavior.

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 purpose: list, monitor, or kill processes on a remote server. It distinguishes from sibling SSH tools by focusing on process management, though 'monitor' is not an exact match to the action enum.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_monitor or ssh_service_status. The description does not indicate prerequisites, when to use specific actions, or when not to use the tool.

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