show_commands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, lowering the burden. The description adds that execution happens via SSH and describes the return structure as a dictionary mapping hosts to success/error results, providing useful behavior beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy, and the main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 moderate complexity (multiple filters, raw command execution), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, execution method, and return format. The output schema already provides structure, and the description fills in the behavioral 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema descriptions are sufficient. Baseline 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 tool executes raw CLI show commands via SSH, combining a specific verb ('execute') with a concrete resource ('raw CLI show commands'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like apply_config (config changes) and backup_configs (backups) by emphasizing the read-only 'show' nature.

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 clearly establishes the intended context: raw CLI show commands over SSH. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'show' scope and SSH method provide clear contextual guidance for when this tool is appropriate.

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