ssh_interactive_input

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns 'newly produced output and status' and that omitting input causes a wait/poll. However, it doesn't disclose blocking/session timeout behavior, whether the session runs to completion, or what happens if the session already closed. Moderate transparency, some key gaps for a potentially blocking call.

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?

Single parenthetical sentence, front-loaded with purpose, then the omit-input variant. Zero wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 4-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core use cases (send input, poll). It explains the return (newly produced output and status). Minor gaps remain around quiet_ms semantics and failure/closed-session behavior, but it's reasonably complete for an interactive I/O utility.

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 50%; the 'input' and 'newline' parameters have schema descriptions. The description text adds meaning by explaining the omit-input-to-poll behavior (which maps to 'input' being optional) and that polling returns newly produced output. This goes slightly beyond the schema, though 'quiet_ms' and 'session_id' semantics rely on the schema alone.

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 clearly states a specific verb (send input) + resource (running ssh_interactive_exec session), plus the poll/read-only alternative when input omitted. 'Or just poll for more output if input is omitted' explicitly distinguishes the two primary uses. It clearly differentiates from siblings like ssh_interactive_close, ssh_interactive_exec, ssh_exec (non-interactive).

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?

Explains the intended usage context (answer sudo password or y/N prompt) and the polling behavior when input is omitted. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus siblings, but the interactive-session context is clear. No explicit alternatives named, but scope is well-defined by the session-based framing.

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