List SSH hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and local ('purely local — no connection is made'), which is critical for agent safety. It does not specify details like whether it reads all aliases or the output format, but the given context is sufficient.

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 two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded, brief, and contains no extraneous words.

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?

The tool has no output schema. The description explains what the tool does and its side effects (none), but does not specify the output format (e.g., array of alias strings). For a simple list tool, this is adequate but could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (coverage 100%), and the description adds no parameter information. Following the rule that high schema coverage defaults to 3, and since there are no parameters to explain, this score 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 explicitly states the tool lists host aliases from the local ~/.ssh/config and emphasizes it is purely local with no connection made. This clearly identifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely involve remote operations.

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 advises using the aliases from this tool as the 'host' argument for other tools, providing clear context for when to use it. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with specific siblings, but the intent is clear.

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