Network Ssh Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that it hits a raw endpoint (appcgi.network.ssh.status) because trim-cli lacks a status subcommand, which implies a read operation, but it never explicitly states read-only/no-side-effect behavior or any auth/session requirements.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then justifies the raw-endpoint approach in a single parenthetical explanation. Two short sentences with no padding; the implementation note is slightly meta but earns its place by explaining the routing decision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description already summarizes what is returned (switch, port, sftp). With four optional params and no required inputs, the definition gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly, missing only explicit safety/auth context.

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 host, port, scheme and profile are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (formats, defaults, interactions), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (查询/query) plus resource (SSH 服务状态) and enumerates the returned facets (开关、端口、sftp). It also names the raw endpoint appcgi.network.ssh.status and implicitly contrasts with the network_ssh_switch sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from the switch tool immediately.

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?

Explains when this tool applies versus the alternative: it notes network_ssh_switch requires --enable/--disable and errors without them, so a status check must route here. That is clear context for choosing between the two, though it does not explicitly frame this as the read-only/non-mutating option.

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