ssh_execute_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'execute a command' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements beyond what's in the schema, potential side effects, error handling, or what the output looks like. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a potentially destructive operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 executes commands on remote systems (potentially destructive) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what kind of output to expect, error conditions, security implications, or how this differs from other SSH-related tools in the sibling list.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 action ('execute a command') and target ('on a remote system via SSH'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'start_interactive_shell' or 'run_ansible_playbook' which might also involve SSH execution.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'run_ansible_playbook', 'start_interactive_shell', 'deploy_vm'), there's no indication of when direct SSH command execution is preferred over other approaches.

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