ssh_exec

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: timeout range and default, stdout/stderr 1 MiB caps, blocking of common destructive commands, and private server-side SSH credentials. It does not contradict annotations. A small gap is that it doesn't specify what happens on timeout or output truncation, but the disclosed constraints are substantial.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, timeout behavior, output caps and destructive-command blocking, credential handling, and sibling routing. No filler or repetition of schema details. Front-loaded with the core 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational constraints an agent needs: timeout, output limits, destructive command blocking, credential privacy, and server alias resolution. It doesn't describe the return format or error behavior, but the annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers the main invocation concerns. Slightly more detail on exit codes or output structure would make it a 5.

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 67%: server and timeout have descriptions, but command has none. The description adds context about the command being a shell command on a remote Linux server and mentions output caps, but it doesn't add much about the command parameter's semantics beyond what the schema implies. The timeout parameter is already well documented in the schema, so the description's timeout mention is redundant. 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 description states a specific verb ('Execute'), a resource ('shell command on the selected remote Linux server'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on arbitrary command execution rather than file operations or server listing. It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from ssh_read_file, ssh_write_file, ssh_list_servers, etc.

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 explicitly says to use ssh_list_servers when the user has not supplied an exact configured alias, and instructs the agent to never ask the user for a password. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, plus a direct pointer to the relevant sibling tool.

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