mcp-ssh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (listing active SSH sessions) but doesn't describe what 'active' means, how sessions are formatted in output, whether this requires specific permissions, or if it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient phrase ('Список активных SSH сессий') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or permissions. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context, but it meets the basic requirement for a simple list operation.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. A baseline of 4 is given for tools with zero parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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?

The description 'Список активных SSH сессий' (List active SSH sessions) clearly states the verb (list) and resource (active SSH sessions), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ssh_connect, ssh_disconnect, or ssh_exec, which all operate on SSH sessions but perform different actions. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing active sessions), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like ssh_exec for executing commands or ssh_disconnect for ending sessions. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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