ssh_shell_start

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: persistent PTY, concurrency limit, and auto-close. It does not mention how to obtain the session identifier or error handling, but covers the core lifecycle traits adequately.

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 only two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: one to state what the tool does, another to provide usage context and constraints. No redundant or extraneous 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?

The description covers purpose, limits, and auto-close, but does not mention the return value (e.g., session ID) or how to subsequently interact with the session. Given the absence of an output schema, this omission leaves agents uncertain about what to expect after invocation. For a start tool, more contextual glue to sibling tools (ssh_shell_send, ssh_shell_read) would improve completeness.

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?

Both parameters (cols, rows) are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 it initiates a persistent interactive shell session with PTY, and lists specific use cases like REPLs and multi-step workflows. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools that execute single commands (ssh_exec, ssh_exec_interactive).

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 usage context (REPLs, multi-step workflows, login) and constraints (max 5 concurrent sessions, 5-min inactivity auto-close). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like ssh_connect or ssh_exec, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over others.

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