ssh_session_send

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'send a command' without specifying whether the command output is returned, if the session is affected, or if there are side effects. Critical details for an SSH command execution tool are missing.

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 that efficiently communicates the core function. While it lacks structure (e.g., no paragraphs or bullet points), it has no verbosity and every word serves a purpose.

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 tool is simple but has no output schema. The description should explain what the agent can expect after sending a command (e.g., output, exit code, errors). It fails to provide this context, leaving the agent uncertain about the result.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (session, command, timeout) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Send a command') and the target ('existing SSH session'), which uniquely identifies this tool among siblings like ssh_session_start or ssh_execute. It immediately conveys that it operates on an already-established session.

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. For example, it does not mention that it requires a prior ssh_session_start call, nor does it differentiate from ssh_execute (which might create a new session). The agent must infer usage context from the parameter 'session' alone.

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