ssh_list_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It mentions excluding wildcard entries and cross-platform adaptation, but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or describe the output format. The nature of the operation is implicitly safe, but additional behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and the key nuance about excluding wildcard entries. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and key behavior. It lacks specifics about the return value format and potential error cases, but for a straightforward list operation this is a minor gap.

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, so the description cannot add parameter-level semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the absence of parameters is clear from the schema and there is nothing to document.

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 the specific verb 'list' and names the resource 'host aliases' from ~/.ssh/config, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_exec or ssh_scan. It also adds a precise detail about excluding wildcard entries, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 the tool is for retrieving configured SSH hosts but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the context of sibling tools suggests it is a preliminary step for other operations.

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