檢查裝置連線

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the session is 'authenticated', implying credential requirements. However it omits what authentication is needed, what happens when the device is unreachable, and whether establishing a session has side effects or timeouts.

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?

One sentence, so nothing is wasteful in length. But the front-loaded clause and the trailing SSH clause are joined by 'or', making the tool's primary behavior read as an afterthought rather than a clear lead.

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 and no parameter documentation, the description must carry the full load, and it does not: it never says what a successful or failed check looks like, nor how to address a paired device. Against a sibling set of eleven device/agent tools, this leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the sole 'device' parameter, which merely carries a default of 'local' with no description. The description mentions 'local' and 'configured' devices in passing but never explains what values the parameter accepts (hostname? paired-device ID? the literal 'local'?) or what happens when it is omitted, so the schema gap is not compensated.

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 offers two loosely-coupled purposes: 'Check local availability' and 'establish an authenticated configured SSH MCP session'. The verb 'check' is clear, but the second clause is jargon-heavy ('SSH MCP session') and obscures what the tool actually returns. It also makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings like list_paired_devices.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_paired_devices or call_device_tool. The phrase 'local availability or ... SSH MCP session' implies a local-vs-remote fork but never spells out the selection condition, leaving the agent to guess.

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