ssh_execute_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not warn about the potential for destructive side effects, privilege escalation via sudo, or that commands run with the SSH user's permissions. It also doesn't mention idempotency, error handling, or that output includes stdout/stderr and exit codes. This is a significant gap for a tool that can mutate remote state.

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 sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no extraneous detail. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the core action, the second highlights key options. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and avoids redundancy.

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?

Despite having five parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (stdout, stderr, exit code) or any failure modes (e.g., unreachable server, authentication errors). It also lacks guidance on safe usage or prerequisites. Given the tool's potential for side effects and its complexity, more detail is needed for an agent to call it confidently.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the description's mention of 'working directory, timeouts, and sudo' adds no new meaning beyond restating the schema. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not enrich parameter understanding with examples or constraints beyond what is already in 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 states 'Execute a bash or shell command on a remote server over SSH' with a clear verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_read_file, ssh_write_file, and ssh_list_directory, which handle specific file operations, and from ssh_system_info or ssh_service_status, which gather info. The purpose is unambiguous and contextually distinct.

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 mentions supported features (working directory, timeouts, sudo) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as stating 'use ssh_read_file for file retrieval' or 'use ssh_test_connection to verify connectivity'. It relies on the agent inferring from sibling names that this is for arbitrary command execution. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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