test-connection

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 tests SSH connection and returns server information, but doesn't describe what 'server information' includes (e.g., OS details, uptime), how failures are handled, whether it requires authentication, or if it has side effects (e.g., logging attempts). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential security and operational 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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information, making it efficient for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 of SSH operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'server information' entails, how errors are reported, or any behavioral nuances (e.g., timeout settings). For a tool that interacts with external systems, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its full context and usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'connectionName' documented as optional with a default value. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'connection name' represents or how it maps to SSH configurations. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Test SSH connection') and resource ('server information'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'check-port' or 'get-status', which might also involve connection testing or server status checking, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., SSH setup), exclusions (e.g., when other tools might be better), or contextual cues (e.g., use for initial connectivity checks before operations like 'execute-command'). This lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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