arvan_ssh_run_script

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

Annotations provide no hints (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false). Description discloses piping and interpreter changeability but lacks details on error handling, output, idempotency, timeouts, or security. For a tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient.

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?

Description is concise: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Could be more structured but is efficient and clear for the core action.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves many aspects uncovered (authentication, timeouts, known_hosts). It only addresses the script content and interpreter, making it incomplete for first-time use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds only 'multi-line script' and 'interpreter' context. Host, script, authentication params (password, private_key), timeouts, etc., are unexplained, leaving the agent to infer or assume SSH knowledge.

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 verb 'Run' and resource 'multi-line script on a server over SSH', specifies piping to bash, and gives use case of setup/bootstrap. It distinguishes from sibling arvan_ssh_run by mentioning multi-line scripts.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for setup/bootstrap scripts,' which implies when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling arvan_ssh_run for single commands, but the context hints at it.

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