executeCommand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits such as whether the command runs synchronously, its output handling, and potential side effects. The description only states 'executes a command' without any additional behavioral context, making it insufficient.

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 only one sentence, which is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and no annotations. While concise, it fails to provide necessary details, indicating under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description lacks guidance on return values, side effects, prerequisites (e.g., connection must be active), and error conditions. It is wholly incomplete for reliable tool usage.

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%, meaning the description must clarify parameter meanings. The description does not mention any of the five parameters (connectionId, command, cwd, timeout, force), leaving the agent to infer solely from parameter names. This adds no value beyond the schema.

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 'Executes a command on a remote server via SSH.' It identifies the verb (execute) and resource (command on remote server). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'backgroundExecute' which likely performs a similar action in the background. Thus, it is clear but not distinguishing.

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 executing remote commands but offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like backgroundExecute or prerequisites such as establishing a connection. It is only implied usage.

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