ssh_alias

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses persistence of add/remove, read-only nature of list, and the requirement for server existence. It does not specify behavior on duplicate alias or error handling, but is sufficient.

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?

Description is concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Efficiently covers actions, parameters, and prerequisites.

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 no output schema and simple CRUD nature, description covers the main usage: actions, required parameters, and prerequisites. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly, though minor details like overwriting existing aliases are missing.

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 100% with descriptions, but description adds context: explains the action enum values, and clarifies that alias is for add/remove while server is for add only. This adds meaning beyond the 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 clearly states it manages local name aliases for servers, with specific actions (add, remove, list). It distinguishes the tool from general SSH tools but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'ssh_command_alias'.

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 explains when to use (to reference a server by a shorter name) and outlines the actions with prerequisites (server must exist for add). It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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