jumpserver_enter

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

Annotations only declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing an internal hostname/whoami/pwd probe with verification, failure codes (ACCOUNT_SELECTION_REQUIRED, ASSET_UNREACHABLE with the parsed list in `detail`), and a 2-minute unreachable-asset refusal window. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does, then prerequisites, then the account-selection and unreachable-asset edge cases. It is dense and longer than typical, but each sentence carries actionable information (error codes, retry prohibition) rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema and only 2 params, the description supplies the missing pieces itself: the verification probe, the shape of the ACCOUNT_SELECTION_REQUIRED detail (parsed account list), and the transient refusal behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly appears to be absent.

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, but the description earns more by explaining why accountIndex exists (the KoKo `ID>` numbered prompt), what its value corresponds to on screen, and what omitting it produces. This adds real semantic meaning beyond the schema's terse 'usually 1 or 2'.

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?

States a specific verb ('Enter'), resource ('target asset'), and mechanism ('THROUGH the JumpServer menu by its IP or name'), which separates it from a generic 'connect'. It does not name the sibling it is contrasted with (e.g. jumpserver_connect/exec), so differentiation must be inferred from the menu-based framing.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Requires the session to be at the menu') and prescribes behavior in edge cases: pass accountIndex when KoKo shows a numbered list, and do not retry an unreachable asset because it is refused for 2 minutes. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead, so the when-not guidance is behavioral rather than routing.

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