ssh_shell_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: concurrent access corrupts the output buffer. However, it does not describe the output format, blocking/non-blocking behavior, or how reading affects the session beyond the clear flag documented in the schema.

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 efficient sentences: the first identifies what the tool does, and the second warns about a critical concurrency issue. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable: it gives the purpose and a key warning. It still leaves gaps around return value structure, buffer read behavior, and how to properly sequence reads after exec/write calls.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both session_id and clear, so parameter coverage is 100%. The description's mention of session_id in the concurrency warning adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already states.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Read output from an SSH shell session.' This distinguishes it from related siblings like ssh_shell_exec and ssh_shell_write, which handle sending input.

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 gives a concrete when-not condition: do not call concurrently with ssh_shell_exec/ssh_shell_write on the same session_id because it corrupts the output buffer. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over other read-like alternatives, but the purpose and exclusion are clear.

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