Execute SSH Command

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important behavioral constraints: environment tier permissions, high-risk command examples, and the requirement to use a returned confirmation_text for guarded commands. These details add real safety context and do not contradict 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage context, then safety/confirmation behavior. The high-risk command list is long but directly actionable, so no sentence is wasted.

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 arbitrary command executor, the description covers environment gating, typical usage, and confirmation flow. It would be stronger with explicit mention of workspaceId/cwd/env/timeout behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for all 9 parameters, but it only clarifies command, connectionId implicitly, and confirmation_text. Parameters like cwd, env, timeoutMs, workspaceId, confirm, and the duplicate confirmationText/confirmation_text are left unexplained, making the schema's 0% coverage a significant gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Executes one non-interactive SSH command on a saved connection.' This clearly differentiates it from diagnostic siblings like run_diagnostic and file-based tools like read_file/write_file/list_dir.

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 description gives an explicit use case ('Use for dev/test repair loops after diagnostics identify a fix') and environment-specific guidance for dev/test/prod. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative siblings, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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