ssh_list_connections

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses scope (only established/alive connections, includes default route state) and '列出' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but it says nothing about required permissions, whether it contacts remote hosts, or the shape of results.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the primary resource and with no redundant or padded clauses. Every phrase (established/alive, default route) contributes scope.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent what is enumerated and adds the default-route scope. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether results include per-connection status detail or routing table contents.

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 4 baseline applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and adds no misleading signature information.

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+resource: listing currently established and alive SSH connections, plus default route status. The 'established and alive' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the config-listing sibling ssh_list_config_hosts, but it never names that sibling or any other, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('list active connections' clearly signals a monitoring/inspection use), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternatives such as ssh_list_config_hosts or ssh_session_start. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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