ssh_shell_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: reading and waiting for additional output (with a default timeout). However, it omits details like the need for an active session, non-destructiveness, or return format, leaving gaps.

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 concise sentences (20 words) that front-load the primary action and add a secondary behavioral note. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned. It implies returning the accumulated output but does not specify format or buffer behavior (e.g., clearing). Also lacks mention of prerequisites like an active shell session, making it minimally adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions waiting briefly but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints that are not already in the parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool reads accumulated output from a shell session buffer, using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_exec, ssh_shell_send, and ssh_shell_close, which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context implies it is for reading output after sending commands via ssh_shell_send, no direct guidance or exclusion criteria are provided, making it adequate but not thorough.

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