ssh_run

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It discloses policies, network checks, progress tracking, timeout, and cancellability, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it omits safety aspects (destructive potential?), required permissions, and failure behavior. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Single sentence is very concise, but it packs a long list of features ('policy, network checks, progress, timeout, and cancellation') which reduces readability. Could be split for clarity.

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 existence of siblings like `ssh_run_async`, `ssh_plan`, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides moderate context. It does not clarify the relationship to these siblings or when to choose this tool over others.

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 has 2 parameters (`alias`, `command`) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no explanation of these parameters; it does not clarify what `alias` refers to (host alias?) or how `command` is used. Schema already lists names, but description fails to add semantics.

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 action ('Execute SSH command') and lists notable features (policy, network checks, progress, timeout, cancellation). It distinguishes from sibling `ssh_run_async` by implication (synchronous with timeout/cancellation), but does not explicitly differentiate from `ssh_run_on_tag` or justify when to use each.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like `ssh_run_async` or `ssh_plan`. No prerequisites, context, or exclusion cases are mentioned.

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