ssh_exec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that stdout, stderr, and exit code are returned, which is useful. But it does not warn about possible side effects of arbitrary command execution, failure modes, or what happens if the connection is missing.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately adds the key return information. Every word contributes value.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, the connection prerequisite, and return values. It could be more complete by mentioning side effects or when to use ssh_exec_script, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already explains command, timeout, and connectionId. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') with a clear resource ('a single command on a connected remote host') and explicitly states the return values. The term 'single command' helps distinguish this from the sibling ssh_exec_script, which likely executes scripts rather than one-off commands.

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 phrase 'single command' implies this is not the tool for scripts, and 'connected remote host' implies a prerequisite connection. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer ssh_exec_script or another sibling, nor does it mention that an active connection is required via connectionId.

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