run_remote_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the need for confirmation but does not address other important behaviors such as required privileges, session handling, error output, or whether the command runs synchronously. The single behavioral trait is useful but insufficient for a potentially dangerous tool.

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, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters) and potential risk, it is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of missing critical 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?

Despite having an output schema (indicated by context), the description does not explain return values. Combined with no parameter documentation and sparse behavioral disclosure, the description is inadequate for a tool that executes arbitrary commands, especially when sibling tools are more specialized.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level detail; it only mentions 'SSH command' but does not explain the purpose or constraints of any of the 6 parameters (e.g., target, login, command, http_port, name_type, confirmation_token).

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?

Description clearly states 'Run an arbitrary SSH command on the device', specifying both the verb ('Run') and resource ('arbitrary SSH command'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are device-specific (e.g., adb_*) or task-specific (e.g., reboot_device).

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 notes 'Always requires confirmation', which provides context about required user action. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites. The siblings suggest many specialized tools, but no guidance is given.

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