ssh_shell_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-detection of PSH state and auto-unlock if locked. However, it does not cover what happens on failure (e.g., unlock fails) or the exact return format, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key behavior. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete in explaining the compound operation. However, it lacks details on the return format ('ready session' is vague) and does not address error cases or prerequisites like needing an established connection, which would enhance completeness.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for key, device, and timeout. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 performs a compound operation: 'One-click SSH login: connect, detect PSH state, auto-unlock if locked, and return a ready session.' It specifies the verb (login) and the resource (SSH session), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_shell_open and ssh_build by explicitly combining multiple steps.

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 that this tool is for quickly obtaining a ready SSH session without manual steps, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives. It lacks explicit when-not or exclusion guidance, making it slightly less clear for precise decision-making.

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