mcp_ssh_mcp_writeToTerminal

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is idempotent, requires an active session, or what happens if the session is closed. This is a critical gap for a mutation tool.

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 short, but this brevity is due to omission rather than conciseness. It fails to provide necessary details about behavior and usage, making it under-specified.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and the complexity of interactive terminal operations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error handling, and behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond the schema. It does not describe that 'sessionId' likely comes from createTerminalSession or that 'data' expects a text string. The description adds no semantic value 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 states the tool writes data to an interactive terminal session, which is clear but vague. It does not specify what kind of data (e.g., text, commands) or differentiate it from similar tools like executeCommand. Sibling context helps, but the description alone lacks specificity.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., active session from createTerminalSession) or scenarios where executeCommand might be preferred instead.

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