Exécuter une commande à distance (SSH)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important execution behavior (30-second threshold determining synchronous vs. asynchronous operation) and mentions background processing. However, it doesn't cover other critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what 'background' execution entails for result retrieval.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with critical behavioral information. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational context.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic operational context but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain how to retrieve results from background tasks, what the output format looks like, error conditions, or security implications. The 30-second threshold is helpful, but more completeness is needed for a remote execution tool.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, nor does it explain relationships between parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Exécute une commande SSH') and resource (remote server via SSH), distinguishing it from sibling tools like task_exec_interactive or task_exec_sequence. It provides precise operational details about execution timing that further differentiate its purpose.

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 usage context by specifying the 30-second threshold for direct vs. background execution, which helps determine when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like task_exec_interactive or task_exec_sequence, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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