ssh_connect

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

Without annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that a new server is 'saved for next time' but fails to clarify critical traits: whether the connection persists as a session, what the tool returns (e.g., session handle), how authentication methods are prioritized, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that convey the core functionality without fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's operation, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb 'Connect'.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete for the two modes of use. However, it lacks details on connection behavior, session management, and error scenarios, which an agent would need for reliable invocation. It is minimally viable but not thorough.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, e.g., no clarification on when to use password vs. privateKey, or precedence among parameters. It is adequate but does not enhance the schema.

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's purpose ('Connect to a remote server via SSH') and distinguishes between two modes: providing full details for a new server or using a session name to reconnect to a saved server. It avoids ambiguity with sibling tools by focusing on connection establishment.

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 explains when to provide full details vs. just a sessionName for reconnection, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for file transfer or command execution) or mention sibling tools as alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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