ssh_read_session

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

With no annotations, the description discloses blocking behavior, default wait time, and the meaning of output flags. It also mentions the 'running' status check. It stops short of explicitly stating whether reading drains the buffer, though 'drain remaining output' implies it.

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?

Three sentences, each with a specific purpose: state the function, explain the wait_seconds behavior, and flag additional signals. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the key operational facets: wait behavior, default, return signals, and session liveness. Since there is no output schema, these return-related details are essential. It doesn't cover error cases or exact return shape, but for a read tool it is adequate.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does explain wait_seconds in detail (blocking, default, examples) but max_output_chars is only implied through 'truncated' and 'pending_output_chars'. session_id is left to context, but its purpose is understandable from the overall description.

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 exact operation: 'Read unread output from a tracked SSH session.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_exec or ssh_write_session. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on wait_seconds for blocking vs immediate returns, and instructs to call again if 'truncated' or 'pending_output_chars' indicates more output. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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