ssh_list_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses deprecation status and hints at scope (live connections only, plus default route state), which is valuable behavioral context, but it does not state whether this is a pure read, what the return shape is, or any auth requirements.

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 with the deprecation warning front-loaded, followed immediately by the resource scope and the recommended alternative. No padding or redundancy.

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, no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential routing information. The only minor gap is that it doesn't clarify how its output differs from ssh_list_targets beyond the 'more comprehensive' framing.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there are no inputs to specify and adds no misleading parameter semantics.

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 (列出/list) plus two concrete resources (存活的 SSH 连接 and 默认路由状态), so the scope is unambiguous. It also names the sibling ssh_list_targets as the preferred replacement, letting an agent distinguish this tool 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?

Explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and directs the agent to ssh_list_targets as a more comprehensive alternative. This is exactly the when-not-to-use and alternative-routing guidance the dimension asks for.

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