ssh_job_output

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: reads only output produced 'so far' (non-blocking), merges stdout and stderr, and supports reading from a chosen byte offset with the next offset returned. This goes beyond annotation data without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences carry the full purpose, the key behavioral detail, and the alternative-tool routing. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 a read-only streaming tool with a complete schema, the description is largely sufficient: it conveys non-blocking behavior, combined streams, byte-offset seeking, and the cursor semantics. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the exact return shape would push this to 5, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description itself does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema says; it merely restates the offset concept. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 and resource: 'Returns what a detached job has written so far', and clarifies that stdout and stderr are combined. It also distinguishes this from ssh_job_status by explicitly contrasting output content with run-state. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 second sentence gives clear routing guidance: if an agent cares whether the job is still running, use ssh_job_status instead. This is an explicit condition that selects between two closely related siblings, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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