Check SSH session status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not explain what 'status' means (e.g., active/inactive, possible values), how to interpret the response, or what happens if the session does not exist. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 might be warranted, but the description is too sparse to provide meaningful additional transparency.

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 short and the main point is front-loaded, but the two sentences are redundant ('Check SSH session status' and 'Checks the status of an active SSH session'). It could be expressed in one sentence without loss. It is not verbose, but the repetition wastes a line without adding information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the returned status looks like (e.g., 'returns true if active, false if not') and how to obtain the sessionId. It does neither. Thus, an agent cannot fully understand what to expect or how to form correct calls, making it inadequate for reliable usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'sessionId' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what sessionId refers to (e.g., a UUID from an establish call, a numeric ID, etc.). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare type and required flag, which is a significant gap.

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 a verb ('Check') and a resource ('SSH session status'), so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the action of checking status is distinct from establishing, disconnecting, or keeping alive sessions, so an agent can infer its role. However, it adds little beyond the tool name and is somewhat tautological.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many siblings like disconnect, keep alive, or establish, the description should indicate scenarios (e.g., verifying session activity before sending commands, or checking if a session has timed out). The absence of any usage context leaves the agent to infer appropriateness from the name alone.

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