ssh_reachable

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it targets the host behind the KVM (a different machine), and the host parameter overrides the profile/env ssh_host at runtime. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the operational scope. It doesn't mention timeout or failure return format, but for a reachability check the disclosed traits are 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 three short paragraphs, front-loaded with a direct question that captures the tool's essence. Every sentence provides distinct value: the question, the target machine clarification, and the host override explanation. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple reachability check with no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description gives enough context to invoke correctly. It explains the target machine, the difference from the KVM appliance, and the host override use case. The tool's complexity is low, and the description covers operational aspects without missing critical details.

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 description explains the 'host' parameter clearly with an example (install-time DHCP address), adding meaning beyond the schema's nullable default. It indirectly implies the 'profile' parameter selects the profile/env ssh_host, but doesn't fully explain its behavior or default resolution. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for one parameter but leaves the other under-specified.

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 checks SSH reachability of the managed host's OS as a yes/no question. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ssh_exec and ssh_discover by focusing purely on reachability detection. The phrase 'Is the managed host's OS reachable over SSH?' is a specific verb+resource pairing.

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 clear context: use this to prefer remote recovery before physical intervention, and it targets the host behind the KVM rather than the appliance. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools when not to use it, relying on implicit distinction from siblings. Still, the usage context is actionable.

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