ssh_session_send

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool mutates remote state, is not idempotent, updates session context with cd/export, uses a bash-style shell, enforces server security policy, and has a default timeout of 30000 ms. This level of detail is exemplary.

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 about 100 words, front-loads the core action, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers behavior, parameters, and security but lacks information on the return value (command output). Given the absence of an output schema, this omission reduces completeness for an agent expecting to consume results.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'session' (from ssh_session_start) and 'timeout' (default 30000 ms), but these are minor additions. It does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's own 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 runs a command in an open session, reusing working directory, environment, and history. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_session_start (which begins a session) and ssh_session_list, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explains that the tool is for executing commands in an existing session and that stateful changes like cd/export affect subsequent calls. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like ssh_execute (which runs standalone commands without session state), but the context is reasonably clear.

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