ssh_shell_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: appending Enter by default, waiting for output, and returning tail of buffer. However, it does not mention error handling, blocking behavior, or safety of special characters, which would strengthen transparency.

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 efficiently structured: a summary sentence followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the front-loaded summary immediately conveys the tool's 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 5 parameters, no annotations, and a presumed simple output schema, the description covers essential usage details. It explains behavior, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks specifics on output structure or potential blocking behavior, leaving minor gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains each parameter's purpose and default values (e.g., press_enter, wait, read_lines). This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema, enabling correct parameter usage.

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 'Send text to the interactive shell', specifying the verb 'send' and resource 'interactive shell'. It differentiates from siblings like ssh_execute (non-interactive) and ssh_shell_read (read-only), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for interactive shell sessions, contrasting with ssh_execute for non-interactive commands. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for non-interactive tasks) or mention prerequisites like an active session from ssh_connect.

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