ssh_list_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the two data sources (live connected nodes and local ~/.ssh/config presets), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about read-only safety, deduplication between the two sources, ordering, or freshness of the config file read.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the framing ('统一目标发现视图') followed by the two aggregated sources. No wasted words, though the colon-heavy Chinese phrasing packs a lot into one clause.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does name the two components of the aggregate (active connected nodes, local config hosts). It stops short of describing the merge/return structure or duplicate handling, but is adequate for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 schema leaves nothing to explain; baseline 4 applies. There is no input the description could clarify further.

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 (聚合返回 / aggregate-and-return) and resource (统一目标发现视图 of connected nodes plus ~/.ssh/config hosts). An agent can tell this is a combined view rather than a single-source list, though it never names the siblings ssh_list_connections and ssh_list_config_hosts that it supersedes.

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 only implied: the '一次性聚合' (one-shot aggregation) phrasing hints this should be preferred over calling the two narrower list tools separately, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. Nothing tells the agent whether this replaces or supplements ssh_list_connections.

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