Connect to SSH for file management

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it establishes a connection, supports different authentication methods, and mentions jump hosts and SOCKS5 proxies. It does not disclose what happens on successful connection (e.g., session ID generation, connection state), nor what happens if authentication fails. It does not contradict annotations. Since annotations are present and the description adds some context (auth methods, proxies), a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently lists key features without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters), but it's well-sized for a connection tool with many parameters.

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 tool has 19 parameters and no output schema, so the description must compensate for understanding the connection process. It covers authentication methods and proxies but does not explain the return value (e.g., session status), error handling, or session lifecycle. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but not exhaustive; an agent might need to infer how to use credentialId vs password, or what happens after connection.

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 documents all 19 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by summarizing the purpose (e.g., 'for file manager operations') and grouping auth methods, but it does not explain the interplay between parameters (e.g., when to use sshKey vs password, or how jumpHosts is used). Baseline 3 is correct because the schema is already comprehensive.

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: establishing an SSH/SFTP connection for file manager operations. It also lists supported authentication methods and proxy options, which helps distinguish it from siblings like termix_tunnels_connect_ssh_tunnel (which is about tunnels, not file management) and termix_files_connect_ssh_file_management is the only connection tool for file operations. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the context of 'file management' is clear.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to manage files over SSH. It does not provide explicit exclusion criteria or alternatives, but the sibling list includes related tools like termix_files_disconnect_ssh and termix_docker_establish_ssh_session_docker, which suggests this tool is for general SSH file connections. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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