dsh_list

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by mentioning 'current derived DSH status' and 'bridge-local workspace-local claim semantics', which are beyond what annotations reveal. It also conditionally scopes enrichment to Host reachability, although it does not specify behavior when the Host is unreachable.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and uses no filler. It packs the key qualifiers (status enrichment, local workspace-local semantics, Host reachability) into a compact but coherent phrase. Every element contributes meaning.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, an agent relies almost entirely on this description to understand what it will get. The description says mappings are enriched, but never describes the return shape, ordering, or what happens when Host is unreachable. It is enough for basic selection, but incomplete for confidently predicting behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is complete by that baseline. There is therefore no parameter-semantic gap for the description to fill. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List bridge task mappings' with enrichment. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing of bridge task mappings, which differentiates it in topic from most siblings. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from dsh_find_sessions or dsh_status, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 phrase 'when the Host is reachable' hints at an operating condition, and calling the tool after 'bridge task mappings' suggests it is for enumerating current mappings. But the description never states when the tool should be preferred over siblings or when not to use it. The usage is implied rather than explicit.

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