remote-ssh

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions authentication method but omits details on command execution behavior, such as whether it streams output, typical timeouts, exit code handling, or error responses.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it may be too brief to cover essential behavioral details, but for conciseness alone it performs well.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., stdout, exit code) or how it handles errors. It also does not mention runtime considerations like timeout or command chaining, leaving the agent underinformed for a potentially sensitive operation.

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 parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds only the authentication context; it does not provide additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline 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 tool name 'remote-ssh' and description 'Execute SSH commands on remote servers with private key authentication' clearly state the verb (execute) and resource (SSH commands on remote servers), and they distinguish from siblings like 'ssh-edit-block' which focus on file editing.

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 tool is for executing arbitrary commands versus the siblings that handle specific operations (edit, read, search, write), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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