ssh_list_config_hosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data source (~/.ssh/config, local file) and that it is a read-style listing, but says nothing about behavior when the file is missing/unparseable or how results are shaped. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the [Deprecated] flag so the most decision-relevant information comes first, followed by scope and then the alternative. No wasted text.

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?

For a deprecated, zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered: source, scope, and the recommended replacement. The one gap is that '基本配置' (basic config) is not itemized, so the exact fields returned remain vague.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or scope arguments are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb (读取并列出 / read and list) and a precise resource (Host aliases and basic config parsed from local ~/.ssh/config). It also names the sibling it overlaps with (ssh_list_targets), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly marks itself as [Deprecated] and routes the agent to a named alternative (ssh_list_targets), described as more comprehensive. This is a clear when-not-to-use signal plus a concrete substitute, matching the strongest calibration example.

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