ssh_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that removal deletes a server and that the tool manages the persistent hosts.json file. However, it does not describe side effects, permission requirements, return format, or clarify that this tool does not itself establish an SSH connection.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The resource and the action pattern are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's core behavior.

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?

The full parameter documentation and explicit action examples make the invocation requirements mostly clear despite the absence of an output schema. The main gap is that the return/result shape is unspecified, but for a simple configuration-management tool this does not prevent correct selection or invocation.

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 parameter semantics are already fully documented by the input schema. The description only restates the action enum values, adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description anchors on a specific resource ('SSH server configurations in hosts.json') and enumerates concrete actions (list/add/remove). This clearly distinguishes it from operational siblings like ssh_connect, ssh_execute, and ssh_session.

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 action-level usage guidance ('use action=list', 'action=add', 'action=remove') but does not explicitly state when to select this tool over alternatives such as ssh_connect or ssh_session. The intended context is implied through 'hosts.json' and configuration management, not directly contrasted with sibling tools.

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