ssh_shell_start

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and return value. It omits crucial details like whether the shell is blocking, timeout behavior, resource cleanup, or error handling for invalid sessionId.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No unnecessary words, but could include a brief note about lifecycle or prerequisites without becoming verbose.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and 10 siblings, the description covers starting a shell but fails to mention lifecycle (e.g., must call ssh_shell_close). It doesn't clarify that cols/rows are optional. Acceptable but not thorough.

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 no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Each parameter (sessionId, cols, rows) is adequately documented 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 clearly states the verb 'Start', the resource 'interactive shell session', and the output 'shell ID for sending commands and reading output'. This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_exec (non-interactive) and ssh_connect (establishes connection).

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 interactive use via 'shell ID for sending commands and reading output', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like ssh_exec. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., session from ssh_connect) or when not to use.

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