ssh-status

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as a quick status check, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention authentication requirements or other potential side effects. For a simple read operation, this is minimally adequate but could be more explicit.

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 exceptionally concise, with only two sentences (15 words) that front-load the action and purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description provides a basic outline of what it returns (list of sessions, viewer URL, connection state). However, it lacks details on the output format or how it compares to similar tools, making it minimally complete but insufficient for a fully informed choice.

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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline score of 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain.

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 lists active sessions, viewer URL, and connection state, and provides a specific use case (check if a session is running). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like ssh-session-list, which also lists sessions, though the 'quick status check' phrasing implies a lighter operation.

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 includes 'Use this to check if a session is already running,' which provides some context, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh-session-diagnostics or ssh-session-list, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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