ssh_exec_interactive

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: PTY allocation, automatic response mechanism, and the need for confirmation on destructive commands. It does not cover connection prerequisites or error handling, but the core behavioral traits are sufficiently explained.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and key features. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

The description is missing important context about output behavior (e.g., what is returned after execution), prerequisites (e.g., must be connected to a session), and possible side effects. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema or annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining the automatic response functionality and the requirement for confirm on destructive commands, which goes beyond the schema's 'Confirmar ejecución de comandos peligrosos'.

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 interactive commands with PTY and supports automatic responses to prompts. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ssh_exec (likely non-interactive) and ssh_shell_* (shell sessions). The verb 'Ejecuta' and resource 'comando interactivo' are specific.

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 when to use this tool (for interactive commands needing responses) and a critical constraint (destructive commands require confirm: true). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when to avoid, but the context implies usage for interactive scenarios.

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