Local SSH Diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific focus on the local process and OpenSSH launch capability, which adds context. However, it does not disclose what the diagnostics entail, potential limitations, or what output to expect.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is concise with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the verb 'Diagnose'.

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 simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is mostly adequate. It clearly identifies the tool's scope and purpose. However, it does not mention what kind of results or diagnostics are returned, which could be useful for an agent. Still, overall it is reasonably complete for a simple diagnostic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, as both parameters (host and timeoutMs) have descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context to these parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly uses the verb 'Diagnose' with a specific resource: the local MCP server process and its ability to launch OpenSSH. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that all focus on remote SSH operations, making it uniquely positioned as a local diagnostic tool.

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 context is implied: this tool is for diagnosing local MCP server issues, not for remote operations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description states what it does but not when to prefer it over other tools.

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