Remote SSH URI

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description aligns by indicating a read-only return operation. The description adds context that both a URI and CLI command are returned, and that the host is 'configured' (i.e., has a default). It does not contradict 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?

The description is one sentence, front-loaded with the action and output. No unnecessary words, making it efficient.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (URI and CLI command). It lacks details on how the host is resolved (e.g., REMOTE_SSH_HOST) but that is left to the schema. Overall, it is complete for its scope.

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?

Both parameters (host and path) have descriptions in the schema, covering 100% of parameters. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as syntax or defaults, so it meets the baseline for parameter understanding.

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 states the tool returns a VS Code Remote-SSH URI and CLI command, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like remote_ssh_exec or remote_ssh_list_dir, which perform actions rather than generate connection strings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The phrase 'for the configured SSH host' implies the use case of retrieving connection info, but it does not exclude or compare with siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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