ssh_cmd_check_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions waiting and checking status, but lacks details on possible errors (e.g., invalid handle_id), the content of the returned dictionary, and whether the wait is blocking. The presence of an output schema mitigates some missing info, but the description should offer more behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds valuable context about LLM limitations. The returns line is somewhat redundant if output schema exists, but overall it is efficient.

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 simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the primary use case. However, it lacks guidance on error scenarios and does not clarify how this tool relates to other status-checking siblings like ssh_cmd_output or polling patterns.

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 the description adds little beyond schema descriptions. It mentions 'specified duration' which aligns with wait_seconds. No additional semantics provided, so baseline 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 tool waits and checks the status of a command, explicitly mentioning it is for monitoring long-running commands started with ssh_cmd_run. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on status checking after a wait.

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 indicates use after ssh_cmd_run for monitoring, and notes that the wait operation addresses a limitation of LLMs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools for similar purposes.

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