执行 SSH 命令

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

Annotations already declare the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds that commands may change server state and requires intent confirmation, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 one sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the purpose then adding a concise warning. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and safety warning, and the existence of an output schema addresses return values. However, it lacks parameter semantics and explicit usage alternatives, making it incomplete for an arbitrary command execution tool.

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?

The description provides no information about the parameters (alias, command, timeout_seconds). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no guidance on how to fill these fields, making the description entirely unhelpful for parameter semantics.

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 executes any remote command, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle specific operations like ssh_check or ssh_upload, making it the generic execution tool.

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 phrase 'any remote command' implies this is the catch-all execution tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or provide exclusions. The warning about confirmation is a safety note, not a usage alternative.

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