remote_bash_list_connections

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. It states the tool lists connections and provides status and idle time, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or describe any side effects or prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing remote connection). This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple list operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names what is listed (active SSH connections) and the returned fields (status, idle time). It could be more explicit about the scope of 'active' or any prerequisites, but overall it is complete for a straightforward listing tool.

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, and the input schema is empty, so the description has no parameter details to add. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4, and the description adequately covers the tool's behavior without needing parameter explanations.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active SSH connections'), and notes the included details (status and idle time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tmux_list_sessions and remote_bash_execute, which target different resources or actions.

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: use this tool when you need to see active SSH connections and their status/idle time. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as tmux_list_sessions or remote_bash_execute, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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