ssh_shell_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the session is interactive and returns the banner, but it omits important behavioral traits such as the session remaining open until closed via ssh_shell_close, potential authentication requirements, or side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant 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?

For a tool of this simplicity, the description is adequate: it names the action and the return value. However, it does not mention the session lifecycle (e.g., that the shell must be closed later), which could be inferred from sibling tools but is not stated. Lacks a bit of context but is generally complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (device and timeout). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (open), the target (interactive SSH shell session to the board), and the immediate result (returns the initial banner output). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_shell_write, ssh_shell_read, and ssh_shell_exec by focusing on session opening.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that ssh_shell_exec or ssh_shell_write might be better for non-interactive commands, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool should be avoided.

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