ssh_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the command runs in a bash login shell with environment preamble and describes default behaviors for cwd, timeout, and host. However, it does not mention error handling, output capture (stdout/stderr), exit codes, or potential side effects. This is a moderate disclosure.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence then an Args section. It is concise without unnecessary words, though slightly verbose in defining defaults (acceptable given no annotations). Front-loaded effectively.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and 21 sibling tools, the description covers parameter meanings and defaults well but lacks specification of return values (stdout/stderr, exit codes) and guidance on when to use vs siblings. Output schema is absent, so the description should explain what the tool returns, which it does not.

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 0%, but the description's Args section adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it provides examples, defaults, and context for each parameter (e.g., 'command' as a shell command string, 'host' as SSH alias). This compensates well for the low coverage.

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 'Execute a shell command on the remote server' and specifies that it runs in a bash login shell with environment preamble. This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_run_background (which likely runs in background) and ssh_check_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?

While the description gives usage tips (command examples, defaults), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_run_background or when not to use it. The guidance is implied but lacks clear exclusions or context for sibling differentiation.

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