Check SSH Connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read nature is known. The description adds that the tool prints basic remote identity details, but it does not explain what those details include or what happens on failure. This is modest added value beyond the annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no redundant words. The description earns its length and is appropriately sized for the tool's simple 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 simple read-only connectivity check with two optional params and annotations, the description provides adequate context. The vague phrase 'basic remote identity details' leaves some output ambiguity, and failure behavior is not described, but the tool's scope is modest.

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 description coverage is 100%: both host and timeoutMs are already well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') with a specific resource ('SSH host') and a concrete outcome ('print basic remote identity details'). It clearly distinguishes this connectivity/diagnostic tool from file operations, exec, and port-forwarding siblings.

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 implies a health-check use case (checking reachability) but provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like remote_ssh_exec or remote_ssh_local_diagnostics. No exclusions or context are given beyond the basic purpose.

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