ssh_execute_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions only one key behavior (handling triple backticks) but omits important details: what the tool returns, error handling, whether the connection must be pre-established, or if the script blocks until completion.

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 only two sentences and conveys the core functionality without any filler. Every word adds value, making it concise and front-loaded.

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 tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description should fill gaps. It does not explain output format, error scenarios, or prerequisites like an active SSH connection, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the backtick handling already present in the script parameter description.

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 multi-line scripts or code blocks on an SSH connection, and highlights automatic handling of triple backticks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_execute (likely single-line) and ssh_upload_and_execute, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh_execute or ssh_upload_and_execute. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing SSH connection) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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