ssh_task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that every call hits the remote host rather than serving a cache, that repeated calls are safe, and precisely what each status means. It flags the critical ambiguity that 'exited' cannot distinguish completion from a kill or recover an exit code, and that 'error' does not imply the process died.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a clearly delimited Returns block enumerating status values. The parenthetical 'running (bool, True iff status==running)' is mildly redundant, but overall the structure is tight and every section 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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description enumerates the return fields and every status branch with their caveats, leaving no ambiguity about results. For a one-parameter liveness probe with no annotations, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it is missing.

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% for the single pid parameter, so the schema already documents its type. The description adds real meaning by explaining the valid sources of the PID (from ssh_task_launch or any genuine remote PID), which helps the agent supply a correct value.

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?

States a specific verb (check liveness/status) and resource (a background task identified by PID), and grounds the PID in the sibling tools ssh_task_launch and ssh_cmd_run. It is distinct from a generic command-status check, though it never explicitly names ssh_cmd_check_status as the near-neighbor it is not.

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 usefully says where the PID comes from and that it is a live check safe to call repeatedly, which implies usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-not or alternative selection versus ssh_cmd_check_status / ssh_cmd_output, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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