ssh-viewer-list

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists processes (a read operation), but does not mention whether authentication is needed, if there are side effects, or what happens if no processes exist. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence immediately stating the action and scope. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain the return format, but it only vaguely mentions 'list processes and their current binding state'. It lacks details on data structure, pagination, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking the 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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context by clarifying what is listed (processes and binding state), which is meaningful beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given zero parameters and clear description of the output scope.

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 'List' and identifies the resource 'persisted local viewer processes' along with their 'current binding state'. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like ssh-session-list or ssh-device-list, which focus on different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh-session-list or ssh-viewer-ensure. The description does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or any conditions that would make it preferable.

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