ssh_get_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists what the tool returns (state, progress, elapsed time, output summary) but doesn't disclose side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. It is adequate but could be more explicit about being a read-only operation.

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 two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It meets conciseness and structure expectations.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the key outputs. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist) or edge cases, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details. It is nearly complete.

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 description does not mention the 'task_id' parameter at all. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 tool gets the status of an async task, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'status of an async task'. It also mentions SEP-1686 compliance, which adds specificity. This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_get_task_output or ssh_get_task_result.

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 when an async task ID is available, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided.

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