ssh_list_background

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what constitutes a 'background task' in this context, whether the list is real-time or cached, what status values are possible, or how the output is formatted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration or redundant information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally clarify what 'background tasks' means in this SSH context and what format/status information is returned. The description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the nature and format of the output.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so the description doesn't need to explain any inputs. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there are no parameters whose semantics need clarification beyond what the empty schema already indicates.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('background tasks and their status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'ssh_list_connections' or 'serial_list_connections' - it only specifies what it lists, not how it differs from other listing tools in the SSH/serial context.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'ssh_check_background' that might check specific background tasks, there's no indication of when to choose listing all tasks versus checking specific ones. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or relationship to other tools.

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