ssh_shell_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool sends nothing, implying a read-only operation, and is intended for long-running commands. However, it does not mention blocking/waiting behavior, session requirements, or what happens when output is still streaming.

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?

A single focused sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and then scoped to the long-running-command use case. It is appropriately concise, though slightly terse for a tool with several non-obvious parameters.

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 description covers only the core purpose and one usage context, while five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations remain unexplained. The tool is not fully usable without substantial inference about timeout and expect behavior.

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 0% and the description introduces none of the five parameters. The semantics of view, expect, idle_ms, and timeout_s are left entirely undocumented, so an agent cannot reason about how to set them.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'read the remaining output of a session' and adds a critical exclusion: 'without sending anything.' This clearly distinguishes ssh_shell_read from the send-focused siblings like ssh_shell_send and ssh_shell_send_secret.

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?

It explicitly targets long-running commands ('для длящихся команд'), which tells an agent when this read tool is appropriate. It does not name sibling alternatives or state exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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