ssh_shell_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., buffer behavior, whether commands are echoed, or error handling). The clear parameter is only explained in the schema, not the description.

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 directly conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and contains no redundancy, though more detail could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the existence of many sibling tools (e.g., ssh_shell_open, ssh_shell_read, ssh_shell_exec), the description does not explain prerequisites (must have open session), return behavior, or how the clear flag impacts output. This is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without additional context.

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 parameters are fully defined in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is already structured, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'send' and the resource 'command to an SSH shell session', clearly indicating the action. However, with siblings like ssh_shell_exec, it does not differentiate between simply sending a command and executing it with output capture, so clarity is good but not perfect.

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 like ssh_shell_exec or adb_shell_write. The description lacks any conditional context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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