ssh_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it discloses that no keys, usernames' credentials, or secrets are exposed, which is the key safety fact for an agent deciding whether to call it. It does not state whether it is strictly read-only or how missing/empty configs are handled, so it is not fully transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and source, then the follow-up usage, then the safety note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what it returns (aliases), where they come from, and how to use them. A brief note on behavior when the config is absent or unreadable would make it fully 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of the `host` argument applies to sibling tools rather than this one, so it adds no parameter detail here but also creates no confusion.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the SSH host aliases') and names the exact source ('~/.ssh/config'), which distinguishes it from the sibling ssh_tunnel/ssh_tunnels listing tools. An agent can identify this as the discovery tool without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the output: use the aliases as the `host` argument to the other ssh tools. That is strong routing guidance. It lacks a when-not clause (e.g., what to do if no config exists), so it stops short of a 5.

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