ssh_shell_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals a critical concurrency hazard (output buffer corruption) and hints at buffering behavior, which is more than minimal. It does not detail return values or idempotency, but the disclosed risk is substantial.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the safety warning is delivered efficiently. Every element serves a functional purpose.

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 simple write tool with no output schema, the description covers its purpose and a key operational risk. It doesn't specify return behavior or the typical write-read flow with ssh_shell_read, but the schema handles parameter context, and the warning adds missing operational insight, making it fairly 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 parameters are well-documented in the structured data (e.g., 'clear' flag, 'command', 'session_id'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline without exceeding it.

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 'Send a command to an SSH shell session' with a specific verb and resource. The concurrency warning referencing ssh_shell_exec/ssh_shell_read helps distinguish this tool from related siblings by implying its role in the write operation.

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 provides explicit usage constraints by warning against concurrency with ssh_shell_exec/ssh_shell_read on the same session, which names alternatives and gives a clear when-not-to-use context. However, it stops short of fully contrasting with all sibling tools or specifying ideal scenarios.

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