ssh_exec_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads status/output and can block (wait) until exit or timeout. However, it doesn't describe what the result structure looks like, whether it's a poll-then-return pattern, or what happens on timeout (error vs return partial status). These are material gaps for a status-checking tool.

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?

One concise sentence that captures the core purpose and the optional wait feature. Zero wasted words, efficient and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return semantics, which it doesn't fully address. The tool is fairly simple (read status/output of a background job), but the agent needs to know what fields the result contains and how timeout behaves. Still, the purpose is clear enough for basic usage, giving a mid-range score.

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 all three parameters (job_id, wait, timeout_ms) are documented in the schema. The description adds the 'optionally wait until it exits' framing which orients the wait/timeout_ms pair. This maps to the baseline 3 given high schema coverage, with minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 checks status/output of a background job started with ssh_exec background=true, and optionally waits for exit. It uses a specific verb+resource combination and references the sibling ssh_exec tool for context, distinguishing it from other siblings.

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 indicates this tool is for jobs started with ssh_exec background=true, clarifying its context. It mentions the optional wait behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like ssh_exec_kill or ssh_exec, though the context makes the pairing reasonably clear.

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