ssh_list_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only human accounts with login shells are listed, which is a key filtering behavior. However, it does not mention prerequisites, side effects (e.g., read-only), or error conditions, leaving gaps.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core action, and includes parameter documentation in a clear format. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits any mention of output format or error handling. For a simple tool, this is minimally adequate but could briefly state the output type (e.g., 'returns a list of usernames').

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that session_name specifies the SSH session to use. This is sufficient for a single parameter, though it could mention that the default is 'default'.

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 tool name and description clearly indicate it lists system users, specifically human accounts with login shells. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ssh_user_info or ssh_last_logins, providing a precise verb+resource.

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 states what it does but offers no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., ssh_user_info). It implies usage for listing system users, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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