ssh_exec_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the script executes via bash -s over an existing connection, but it does not state whether stdout/stderr are captured, what happens on non-zero exit, whether the call blocks until completion, or that arbitrary scripts can have destructive side effects on the remote host.

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 core action is stated first and the key mechanism follows. Every word contributes and the description is easy to scan.

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 that runs arbitrary remote code, the description omits important operational details such as return value/output capture, error propagation, timeout behavior, and connection prerequisites. With no output schema and no annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by specifying that the script parameter is fed via stdin to bash -s, which clarifies execution semantics and shell context beyond the schema's generic 'Multi-line bash script to execute'.

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 starts with a precise verb ('Execute') and identifies a specific resource (multi-line bash script on a connected remote host). The added mechanism ('passed via stdin to bash -s') distinguishes it from sibling ssh_exec, making the tool's unique role clear.

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 this is for multi-line scripts, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over ssh_exec or any other sibling. An agent must infer the usage boundary from the 'multi-line script' and 'stdin to bash -s' wording rather than being told.

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