start_interactive_shell

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true. The description adds value by disclosing the mode requirement (HTTP mode) and that it opens a browser-based terminal. It does not mention session lifecycle or cleanup, but given annotations, the information is sufficient and consistent.

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 four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, capability, example use, and requirement. No redundant or vague statements. Information is front-loaded with the core action 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?

For a tool that starts an interactive session, the description covers what it does, prerequisites (HTTP mode), and example usage. Since there is no output schema, it does not explain return values, but the interactive nature makes output implicit. Minor gap: no mention of session termination or how to access the shell. However, overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's nature.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description enhances by providing examples for initial_command (e.g., Proxmox install command) and clarifying optional credential usage (registered credentials or SSH keys). This adds practical meaning beyond schema field names.

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 starts an interactive web-based shell session on a remote system. It specifies the browser-based terminal with full TTY support and gives example use cases like Proxmox community scripts. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools such as ssh_execute_command (non-interactive) and run_ansible_playbook.

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 explicitly requires HTTP server mode and explains that stdio mode returns an error with setup instructions. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when to avoid this tool, the context of interactive scripting vs. single commands is clear, and the sibling list provides implicit contrast.

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