Execute a shell command over SSH

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it runs a command remotely, returns stdout/stderr/exit code, and blocks dangerous commands unless confirmed=true. It also instructs how to handle blocked commands by explaining risks and getting explicit user approval.

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?

Three efficient sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and return format, then usage guidance, then safety protocol.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly mentions the return values (stdout/stderr/exit code). It covers when to use, dangerous command handling, and basic parameters. For a complex tool with 7 parameters, it provides sufficient context without being overly verbose.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the confirmed parameter in context of dangerous commands and implying the use of host and username. It gives additional semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 runs a single shell command over SSH and returns stdout/stderr/exit code. It distinguishes itself from sibling deploy_* recipe tools by explicitly stating to use it for anything that doesn't fit those recipes.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this for anything that doesn't fit one of the deploy_* recipe tools.' It also provides guidance on dangerous commands, explaining the blocking mechanism and how to handle it with user confirmation.

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