ssh_spawn

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'persistent interactive' but omits key details like authentication requirements, error handling, timeout behavior, and how to manage the session (e.g., session_kill).

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Could potentially be expanded to include parameter details without losing conciseness.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, 1 required) and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover parameter semantics, prerequisites, or session lifecycle, though the output schema likely documents the returned session id.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation for any of the 9 parameters (host, command, cols, etc.), leaving their purpose and valid values entirely undefined.

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 'Open', the resource 'persistent interactive PTY', and the output 'returns a session id'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_exec (non-interactive) and shell_spawn (local PTY).

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 usage for interactive remote sessions but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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