ssh_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it establishes a connection and returns a connection ID for reuse. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements (e.g., password vs. key trade-offs), timeouts, error handling, or whether the connection persists across tool calls. This is adequate but leaves gaps for a tool with security implications.

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—two sentences that front-load the core action and immediately follow with the return value. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (SSH connection with authentication and security considerations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and return value but lacks details on behavioral nuances (e.g., error cases, connection management) that would help an agent use it correctly in varied scenarios.

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%, providing full parameter documentation (e.g., host as 'Hostname or IP address,' password as 'optional if using key'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already specifies, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 the specific action ('Connect to a remote host via SSH') and resource ('remote host'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_execute or ssh_disconnect. It explicitly mentions the return value ('Returns a connection ID for subsequent commands'), which further clarifies its purpose beyond basic connection establishment.

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 context by mentioning the connection ID is for 'subsequent commands,' suggesting this tool initiates a session rather than executing commands directly. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like ssh_execute (for one-off commands) or provide exclusions (e.g., not for already-connected hosts).

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