ssh_process_manager

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavioral traits: read-only vs mutation, readable servers blocking kill, defaults for signal/sortBy/limit, and pid dependency. Missing error handling or side effects, but adequate.

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?

Three succinct sentences. First introduces overall purpose, second delineates actions with safety hints, third summarizes defaults and constraints. No waste, front-loaded.

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?

Covers all 7 parameters with their dependencies and defaults, explains action-specific requirements, and notes server-level constraints. No output schema, but the description is self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description adds significant value: explains pid relevance per action, defaults for signal, sortBy, limit, and filter usage. This exceeds the schema descriptions.

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 three actions (list, info, kill) on remote processes, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes read-only vs mutation operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides per-action guidance (e.g., pid required for kill/info, kill blocked on readonly servers) but does not compare this tool with sibling SSH tools or indicate when to prefer it over alternatives.

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