host_exec

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond that: concurrency behavior, the workspace-vs-global scope constraint, and precise output truncation policy (last 10 lines, 1500 chars, one global budget). No contradiction with annotations; it enriches the behavioral picture.

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?

Four sentences, each fact-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional behavioral notes are placed after the purpose, and the output-routing note is last. No wasted words, though a slightly shorter version could combine scope and output details.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description does describe default truncation and the escape hatch (result_read). However, it leaves timeout and concurrency semantics unexplained, and does not address error scenarios or what 'most useful stream' means. Given the tool complexity, more parameter-level detail would improve completeness.

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 only 20% (targets has a description). The description reinforces that targets come from hosts_list but does not explain command, timeout, concurrency, or full_output beyond defaults. For low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it only adds meaningful detail for one out of five parameters.

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 action 'Run the same shell command concurrently on one or more configured SSH hosts' – a clear verb-resource pair that immediately distinguishes this from siblings like hosts_list (listing hosts) and shared_read/shared_write (shared storage). The concurrency and multi-host scope add precision.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite ('targets must contain host IDs from hosts_list') and points to an alternative for full output ('Use result_read for undisclosed or full output'). It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases for other siblings, but the purpose is distinct enough that context is clear. Only one alternative is named, so not a full 5.

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