start_interactive_shell

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavioral traits. It mentions 'full TTY support' and browser-based interaction, but omits critical details like authentication requirements (SSH keys vs. password), session management (timeouts, persistence), security implications, or what happens on connection failure. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with core functionality. The second sentence adds useful context about use cases, though 'Perfect for' could be slightly more concise. No wasted words or redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (interactive shell with 5 parameters) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete but has significant gaps. It covers the core purpose and use cases but misses behavioral details like error handling, session lifecycle, and security considerations that would be essential for safe agent usage.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning Proxmox scripts as an example for initial_command but not explaining parameter interactions or providing additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('start', 'opens') and resources ('interactive web-based shell session', 'browser-based terminal'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing interactive capabilities unlike batch-oriented tools like ssh_execute_command or 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 provides implied usage context ('Perfect for Proxmox community scripts or any interactive command-line tools') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_execute_command for non-interactive commands or other remote execution tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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