ssh_exec

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses the destructive behavior and the safeguard (confirm: true). For a command execution tool, this is a key behavioral trait. It does not detail other behaviors like output handling or timeouts, but the description adds value beyond the schema.

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 a single sentence, efficient and front-loaded. It could be split into two sentences for clarity (purpose, then safety condition), but it contains no unnecessary words.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage and safety. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and when to use the confirm flag. Minor omissions (output description) are acceptable for such a tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters have individual descriptions. The description adds meaning by explicitly linking 'confirm' to destructive commands, clarifying when it is required. This goes beyond the schema's static description.

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 it executes a command on a remote server. The verb 'Ejecuta' (execute) and resource 'servidor remoto' are specific. This tool is distinct from siblings like ssh_exec_interactive or ssh_shell_send, which handle interactive or streaming execution.

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 using the 'confirm' parameter for destructive commands (rm -rf, reboot). It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ssh_exec_interactive or ssh_shell_send, but the context of command execution versus interactive shell is implied.

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