ssh_connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple action statement by detailing the credential resolution order (explicit args, env vars, local agent) and a security rationale for avoiding inline secrets. It stops short of describing failure modes, timeouts, or session lifecycle, but the key behavioral context is well covered.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the credential resolution order is presented as a compact numbered list. The security note earns its place by changing recommended behavior. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the format is easy to scan.

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 connection-establishing tool, the description provides the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and how authentication credentials are resolved. It does not mention session cleanup via ssh_disconnect or error/retry behavior, but given no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to `password` and `key_path` by placing them in a resolution order and advising against their use, which is valuable. However, `key_passphrase` is not explained at all, and `host`, `username`, and `port` are only self-evident from their names, so the compensation is incomplete.

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: 'Open an SSH session to a remote host and return a session_id to use with the other ssh_* tools.' This clearly identifies the tool as the session-establishing entry point and distinguishes it from its siblings, which are all operations that consume that session_id.

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 explains the tool's role in the ssh_* workflow and gives explicit credential-handling guidance: it lists a resolution order and recommends leaving password/key_path unset in favor of env vars. It does not explicitly name alternative tools and the conditions for choosing them, but the phrase 'other ssh_* tools' makes the usage context clear.

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