ssh_shell_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Read output' without specifying whether the call blocks, returns available output immediately, or handles empty buffers. The 'clear' parameter in the schema hints that buffer clearing is possible, but the description does not explain the behavior when reading or clearing. This is a significant gap for a read operation.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the core action and resource. It contains no superfluous words and is appropriately front-loaded. It is minimal but achieves clear purpose communication in the fewest words possible.

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 tool is conceptually simple (read from an SSH session), and the schema covers parameters, but the description lacks behavioral context such as whether reading is destructive, how output is buffered, or what happens if the session is closed. The presence of similar tools (power_shell_read, adb_shell_read) means the description does not fully differentiate itself beyond the tool name, but it is adequate for a basic read operation with schema support.

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%: both parameters (clear and session_id) have descriptions in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not improve on the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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's action ('Read') and the target resource ('output from an SSH shell session'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_shell_write (which writes input) and ssh_shell_open (which opens sessions). The purpose 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the parameter description for 'session_id' references 'ssh_shell_open', implying it should be used after opening a session. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage guidance to be inferred from context.

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