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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data source (~/.ssh/config) and the read-only nature implied by 读取并列出, but says nothing about failure behavior when the file is missing or malformed, or whether values are masked. For a zero-parameter read tool this is acceptable 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the data source appear before any detail. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does sketch the return contents (all Host aliases and their basic configuration), which is the key missing piece an agent would need. No annotations or params exist to be explained, so only the edge-case behavior is left unstated.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description also previews what is returned (Host aliases plus basic configuration), adding modest value, though there is no parameter surface to elaborate on.

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 pair (读取并列出 / read and list) and a precise resource (Host aliases in the local ~/.ssh/config), which clearly separates it from ssh_list_connections (live connections) and the sftp_* tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast, but the resource is narrow enough that an agent can disambiguate without opening the 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?

The description implies its usage context (inspecting the parsed local SSH config) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the file must exist), and no exclusions relative to ssh_list_connections or ssh_connect. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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