mcp_ssh_manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions security features like 'Защита от command injection, санитизация команд, ограничения безопасности' (protection against command injection, command sanitization, security restrictions), which adds valuable behavioral context beyond the basic action list. However, it doesn't cover other important behaviors like error handling, authentication requirements beyond password, or performance characteristics.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and listing actions, another describing security features. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The emoji and security details add value without excessive verbosity.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and security context but lacks important details. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how different actions use different parameter subsets. The security mentions are helpful but insufficient for full understanding of this multi-action SSH tool.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters relate to different actions or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs 'SSH операции' (SSH operations) and lists specific actions like setup_profile, list_profiles, execute, system_info, check_host. It distinguishes from sibling tools (mcp_api_client, mcp_psql_manager) by focusing on SSH management, but doesn't explicitly differentiate within its own action types.

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 specific actions (e.g., when to use 'execute' vs 'system_info'), nor when to use this tool versus sibling tools. It mentions security features but doesn't explain their practical implications for usage decisions.

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