ssh_task_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it returns a dictionary but does not mention safety (e.g., read-only nature), error handling for invalid PIDs, or any side effects. The return type is vaguely described as 'task status information' without details.

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 with three short sentences: one for purpose and two for return value. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids extraneous detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 presence of an output schema (context indicates it exists) and no annotation richness, the description is insufficient. It does not explain possible status values, error scenarios, or differentiate from ssh_cmd_check_status. The return value description is too vague for an agent to interpret reliably.

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?

The input schema already describes the pid parameter as 'Process ID to check status for' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 checks status of a background task by PID. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('background task by PID'), making the purpose unambiguous. Siblings like ssh_task_launch and ssh_task_kill confirm the distinct functionality.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ssh_cmd_check_status or ssh_task_kill. The description provides no usage context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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