ssh-quick-connect

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

With no annotations, the description discloses reuse of existing sessions and return of viewer details when enabled. However, it omits failure modes, authentication requirements, or side effects of reuse. Partial but insufficient for safety.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key action ('One-step: open SSH session'), and zero wasted words. Every phrase adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should hint at return structure. It mentions 'viewer details when enabled' but not format or error handling. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps given complexity (reuse, fallback).

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds context about device profiles and fallback. However, it does not explain the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., default values and meanings).

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 opens an SSH session in one step, using device profiles or fallback to .env defaults. It implies a streamlined operation but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ssh-session-open.

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 mentions 'one-step' and reuse behavior but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ssh-session-open or ssh-run. Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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