connect_vps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool establishes an SSH connection and lists authentication options, it doesn't describe what happens after connection (e.g., creates a session, returns connection status), potential failure modes, security implications, or whether this is a one-time or persistent connection. For a security-sensitive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states the purpose and key requirements with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately follows with essential constraints.

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 security-critical SSH connection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (connection handle, success status, error details), doesn't mention session management, and provides no information about error handling or security considerations. The context demands more comprehensive documentation.

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 the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the authentication alternatives (password or privateKey), but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships, validation rules, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Connect to a VPS using SSH') and identifies the required resources (host, username, and authentication credentials). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like execute_command or disconnect_vps by focusing on establishing the SSH connection itself rather than subsequent operations.

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 SSH connection requirements, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like disconnect_vps or execute_command. It provides basic prerequisites (host, username, authentication) but lacks guidance on timing or exclusion scenarios.

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