ansible-remote-command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'enhanced output parsing' but does not detail what that entails. There is no disclosure of potential side effects, permissions required, or mutability of state. For a tool that executes arbitrary commands, this is insufficient.

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 with one sentence and a list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the parameter list could be better integrated; the use of 'Args:' is clear but could be more structured. Overall adequate but not exceptional.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, an output schema not shown), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and details about the output schema. The 'enhanced output parsing' is vague. More information is needed for safe and effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief phrase (e.g., 'host_pattern: Target hosts pattern'). This adds meaning that the schema lacks. All 7 parameters are covered, but the explanations are terse.

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 arbitrary shell commands on remote hosts with enhanced output parsing. The verb 'execute' and resource 'shell commands on remote hosts' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like ansible-ping or other ad-hoc command tools, but the mention of 'enhanced output parsing' provides some differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements. Sibling tools like ansible-playbook or ansible-ping are not mentioned. The description leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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