ssh_upload_and_execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action, omitting traits like cleanup behavior (parameter exists but not mentioned), execution output, error handling, or whether multiple simultaneous connections are supported.

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 a single sentence, concise but lacking important context. It could be improved by front-loading key behavioral details without adding significant length.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to mention return format, cleanup behavior, connection requirements, or how it differs from similar tools.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'upload and execute', resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 states the tool uploads and executes a script, which is specific and distinguishes from related tools like ssh_execute (no upload) or ssh_upload_file (no execution). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with ssh_execute_script, which may 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ssh_execute or ssh_upload_file. The description does not specify typical use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

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