Check Whatbox SSH Connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it uses 'local credentials' and does not return their values. This goes beyond the structured data and tells the agent what to expect, though it doesn't detail failure behavior or output specifics.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place: 'Test', 'verified read-only SSH connection', 'using local credentials without returning their values' – no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it tests, the read-only nature, and credential privacy. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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, so there is no schema burden. The description's mention of 'local credentials' clarifies that no parameter input is needed, aligning with the empty schema. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds minimal but relevant context about credential handling.

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 uses a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('SSH connection') and adds scoping details ('verified read-only', 'using local credentials without returning their values'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like whatbox_services_status or whatbox_configuration_status, which check other aspects.

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: verifying readiness of an SSH connection. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but no sibling tool tests SSH connectivity directly, so the implied context is sufficient for basic guidance. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative references.

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