ssh_process_manager

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

With no annotations present, the description properly carries the behavioral disclosure burden: it explicitly marks list and info as read-only, kill as mutating remote state, and notes the readonly-server block. It also exposes defaults for signal, sortBy, and limit, which helps the agent predict behavior.

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 dense sentences cover actions, read-only vs mutating behavior, required parameters, constraints, and defaults. The most important behavioral distinction is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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 7 parameters, 3 enums, and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential invocation requirements: action selection, pid requirement, readonly constraint, and default behavior. It does not detail the output shape, but it communicates enough for correct selection and basic 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats information already in the schema property descriptions, such as pid being required for kill/info, filter narrowing by name/command, and the defaults for signal, sortBy, and limit. It adds little novel semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses specific action verbs ('Lists, inspects, or terminates processes') and names the resource (processes on a remote server over SSH). It clearly distinguishes the three modes via the action parameter, making it immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 clear context for when each action is appropriate: list and info are read-only, kill mutates state, and kill is blocked on readonly servers. It states that pid is required for kill and info, but it does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling alternatives like ssh_execute.

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