ssh_execute_group

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

No annotations exist, so description fully covers behaviors: mutation of remote state, non-idempotent, best-effort, per-server security policy evaluation, timeout (30000 ms), cwd defaults, and strategy-specific delay. No contradictions.

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?

Description is informative and front-loaded, but slightly verbose. Could condense 'Best-effort: the security policy...' into a more concise statement. However, overall structure is logical and easy to parse.

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?

Given tool complexity (multiple strategies, non-idempotent, best-effort) and absence of output schema, description covers all essential behavioral aspects. Agent can understand what to expect and how to use parameters.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds meaning beyond schema: explains strategy implications, delay role, stopOnError effect, timeout, and cwd default. For example, 'delay' is described as 'between servers in ms (for rolling)' which clarifies its use.

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?

Description clearly states it runs one command on every server in a named group and returns a per-server report, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_execute (single server) and ssh_deploy.

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?

Describes execution strategies (parallel, sequential, rolling), delay, stopOnError, and best-effort behavior. Implicitly indicates use for group-level commands but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives.

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