ssh_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication methods and optional actions, but it does not disclose critical behaviors such as whether the connection creates a persistent session usable by other tools, what the return value is, failure handling, or timeout behavior. This is a significant gap given the sibling tool 'ssh_session' exists.

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 sentences and efficiently communicates the core purpose, auto-connect behavior, and optional features. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns on success/failure, whether it establishes a persistent session for use with sibling tools, or how it relates to ssh_session. This leaves agents guessing about essential invocation context.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds some context by referencing auto-connect, authentication methods, and optional save/execute, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, baseline 3 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 clearly states the primary action (establish an SSH connection) and mentions key features like auto-connect, authentication methods, and optional save/execute. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ssh_session, which might also establish connections, so it is not fully distinct.

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 implies usage context by mentioning auto-connect when no parameters are provided and optional post-connect actions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks a clear 'when to use this vs. others' statement.

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