Run SSH

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

The description discloses some behavioral traits: it can make changes, requires passwordless sudo, and advises on systemctl usage. However, it omits key details like connection prerequisites, error handling, and output behavior. With no annotations, the description provides moderate transparency.

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 relatively concise with three sentences, each adding useful information. It front-loads the warning about system changes and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description lacks completeness for safe and effective usage. It does not mention network connectivity, SSH key setup, command execution environment, or return value format, which are critical for a mutation tool. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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?

The input schema has a schema coverage of 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not explain the host or command parameters, providing no added meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 does not explicitly state that the tool runs an arbitrary command on a remote host via SSH. It only says 'This command could make changes to the system,' which is vague and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like run_ssh_read_only.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_ssh_read_only. The description includes warnings but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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