ssh_cmd_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns a list of output lines, but does not cover what happens with invalid handle IDs, whether it blocks, or if output may be truncated. This is insufficient for a tool that depends on a prior command execution.

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 very concise with two sentences and a returns line. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be structured to include usage hints or prerequisites, so it is efficient but not perfectly structured for an AI agent.

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 complexity is low (2 parameters, simple) and there is an output schema (though not shown), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention the lifecycle of command handles or how output retrieval relates to command execution state. A score of 3 reflects that it meets minimum viability but has gaps.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not improve upon it.

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 'Retrieve output from a specific command execution', which is a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_cmd_run (which runs a command) by focusing on output retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other similar retrieval tools like ssh_cmd_check_status or ssh_cmd_history, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., command must have been run), nor does it mention constraints like handle expiration or limits. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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