ssh_exec

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and host requirement, omitting critical details like return value (stdout/stderr), failure behavior, or that timeout_ms parameter exists. This is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second adds a critical constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., command output) and any side effects. It does not. Also, sibling tools exist for connection testing, but no guidance on when to use exec vs test. The description is too minimal for confident selection.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for host, command, or timeout_ms.

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 tool's action ('Execute a command') and the target resource ('remote SSH host'). It distinguishes from siblings like ssh_test_connection (which tests connectivity) and ssh_get_config (reads config) by specifying execution of commands. The host constraint adds specificity.

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 when you need to run a command on a remote host, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ssh_test_connection or ssh_disconnect. It mentions a prerequisite (host must be defined), but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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