jumpserver_exec

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: completion is detected by a unique marker rather than a fixed wait, the real exit code is returned, and a static READ_ONLY classifier blocks shell structure. It does not describe the approval flow or failure modes in prose (that lives in the schema), and the conservative destructiveHint=true / readOnlyHint=false annotations are left unreconciled with the 'send a read-only command' instruction.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the primary action and its scoping constraint are front-loaded, then the command-shape restrictions, then the sibling routing. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, the description correctly discloses the return shape (stdout plus real exit code) and the completion-detection mechanism, which is exactly what an agent needs. It leaves the approval prerequisite (COMMAND_APPROVAL_REQUIRED / confirm) to the schema and never states explicitly that jumpserver_enter must precede it.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description meaningfully constrains the `command` parameter (one simple command, no shell structure of any kind) far beyond the schema's generic 'Shell command to execute on the remote asset'. `confirm` and `timeout` are left entirely to 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?

States a precise verb+resource+scope: run ONE simple command on the CURRENTLY entered asset, returning stdout and the real exit code. The 'CURRENTLY entered asset' scoping and the explicit pointer to jumpserver_batch cleanly separate it from the batch and run siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use (single command, several checks -> use jumpserver_batch) and when-not (no for/if loops, no $(...) substitution, no multi-statement one-liners, because READ_ONLY blocks shell structure). The alternative tool is named with the condition that selects it.

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