checkConnectivity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks SSH connectivity but doesn't describe what 'possible' means (e.g., success criteria like authentication, network reachability), potential side effects, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose efficiently. It avoids unnecessary details while conveying the essential action, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 of SSH connectivity checks (involving network, authentication, etc.), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, success/failure conditions, and return values, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in this context.

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%, with the single parameter 'hostAlias' documented as 'Alias or hostname of the SSH host'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema already provides adequate coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('SSH connection to the host'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHostInfo' or 'listKnownHosts', which might also involve host connectivity checks, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing SSH credentials), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'getHostInfo' for detailed host status or 'runRemoteCommand' for testing connectivity via command execution, leaving the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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