Get SSH connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('Checks the status') but does not explain what the status values look like, whether it returns a boolean, or what happens if the session does not exist. With annotations covering the core traits, 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the 'for file manager' qualifier adds useful context without bloat.

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 simple read-only status check with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks detail on what the status response contains and how sessionId relates to the file-manager session lifecycle, which an agent might need to interpret the result correctly.

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. The description does not explain what sessionId refers to (e.g., a file-manager session ID) or how to obtain it. However, with only one parameter and a self-explanatory name, the gap is moderate. Baseline 3 is fair.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('SSH connection status'), and adds 'for file manager' to clarify the domain. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like termix_docker_check_ssh_session_status or termix_tunnels_get_all_tunnel_statuses, which also relate to connection status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for file-manager SSH sessions specifically, nor does it exclude docker or tunnel status checks. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and the 'for file manager' phrase.

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