Get all tunnel statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the resource scope ('status of all SSH tunnels') and does not disclose additional behavioral details such as return format, live vs cached data, or error behavior.

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 front-loaded, but the first sentence repeats the tool title exactly and the second sentence is nearly synonymous. It is concise but wastes one sentence on redundancy rather than adding differentiating or behavioral value.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent listing operation with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool. It clearly identifies the resource and scope, though it could add a sentence about what a tunnel status contains.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema has no fields, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 action and resource: retrieving the status of all SSH tunnels. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling termix_tunnels_get_tunnel_status_name by emphasizing 'all' tunnels, and from connection-management tools like connect/disconnect.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as termix_tunnels_get_tunnel_status_name for a single tunnel. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided; the agent must infer usage 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.