cme_ssh

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions password and key-based authentication but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive, how it handles errors, or what side effects may occur. The presence of execCmd and module parameters suggests command execution capability, which should be highlighted.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the core purpose and key features. No wasted words.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, command execution behavior, authentication flow, or how modules work. The agent would need significant inference to use this tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., associating password/keyFile with authentication). It does not provide additional context for complex parameters like execCmd or module.

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's purpose: 'Execute SSH protocol operations' with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies supported authentication methods (password and key-based) and target OS (Linux/Unix), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cme_rdp or cme_winrm.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where a different sibling tool would be more appropriate. For a tool with many siblings, this is a significant gap.

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