ssh_list_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'active SSH connection IDs and details' but does not mention if the operation is read-only, has any side effects, or requires authentication. The lack of detail on what 'details' entails is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose with no waste.

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?

Despite having no parameters, the description is incomplete for a list tool. It does not specify what 'details' are returned (e.g., host, user, port, status), nor does it confirm the scope (all connections or only those owned by the user). Without an output schema, the description should provide these details.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description does not add parameter info, but none is needed. However, it could have mentioned that no parameters are required.

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 'List all active SSH connection IDs and details.' It specifies the verb (list) and resource (active SSH connections), and the sibling tools cover different operations (close, connect, execute, SFTP), so this tool is uniquely positioned as the listing tool.

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 usage for viewing active connections but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. Given the sibling tools are distinct, the absence of explicit when-to-use is acceptable but not optimal.

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