SSH MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and explicitly states 'Risk level: low (read-only)', informing the agent this is a safe operation. It could improve by mentioning pagination behavior or result limits, but adequately covers the critical safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states the operation, second discloses risk classification. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero parameters and existence of an output schema (per context signals), the description is complete. It covers the operation purpose and safety level without needing to document return values or complex parameter interactions.

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?

Per evaluation rules, zero parameters warrants a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics where none exist in the empty input schema.

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 specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'pending approval requests', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools 'approve_request' (action) and 'request_approval' (creation). The scope 'all' precisely defines the operation's breadth.

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?

While the description implies usage through clear naming (list vs approve), it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives like 'approve_request'. The agent must infer when listing is preferable to other approval-related operations.

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