ssh_process_manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: which actions are read-only vs. mutating, that kill may be blocked depending on server config, and default values for signal, sortBy, and limit. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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 three sentences, efficiently structured with the main purpose first, then action details, then defaults and filters. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (three actions, seven parameters, no output schema), the description covers all relevant aspects: actions, parameter dependencies, defaults, and behavioral constraints. The lack of output schema is acceptable as it is not provided, and the description does not need to explain return values.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that pid is required for kill and info, that filter narrows by name/command, and that defaults apply to signal, sortBy, and limit. It also explains the action parameter's semantic groups, which is not fully captured in schema descriptions alone.

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 lists, inspects, or terminates processes on a remote server over SSH. It explicitly names the three actions (list, info, kill) and distinguishes itself from siblings focused on file operations, tunnels, or backups.

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 guidance on when to use each action: list for read-only top processes, info for details (read-only), kill for termination (mutation). It also notes that kill is blocked on readonly servers, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or give alternative tool recommendations.

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