Ssh Execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: commands must be config-allowlisted and run in an allowed directory, implying a permission/policy gate. It says nothing about return format, timeout defaults, failure modes, or whether commands are interactive.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and constraint, with the alternative appended. Very little waste, though the semicolon clause is dense enough to be slightly cryptic.

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 an unannotated command-execution tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description omits too much: output shape, timeout semantics, error behavior, and the meaning of server_alias. The allowlist hint is useful but not sufficient.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Allowed directory' vaguely gestures at the directory parameter, but cmd_string, timeout_ms, and server_alias are never explained, nor is the default server_alias='default' behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a ... command in ... directory') with a scope constraint that a bare 'execute' would lack. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling remote_execute, which appears to overlap.

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?

Explicitly routes job submission to slurm_submit, which is a concrete alternative with a selecting condition. It stops short of stating when to prefer ssh_execute over remote_execute or what is disallowed.

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