remote_fleet_command

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

No annotations are provided; the description adds a danger warning but does not explain why it's dangerous (e.g., potential for mass system changes, no rollback). The 'confirm' parameter is mentioned in schema but not in description.

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 a single sentence, concise and to the point, though it could benefit from a bit more structure.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description lacks essential context about prerequisites, execution behavior, error handling, and return value, which is insufficient for a 3-param tool.

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% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (hosts, command, confirm), leaving the agent without guidance on their format or purpose.

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 verb 'execute' and the resource 'command across multiple remote hosts via SSH', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'remote_ssh_exec' which likely targets a single host.

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 includes '[DANGEROUS]' as a warning but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remote_ssh_exec', nor any conditions or exclusions.

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