MCP SSH Manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create backup' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's a long-running operation, what happens if a backup with the same name exists, error handling, or what the tool returns. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and follows the principle of front-loading the essential information.

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 complex backup creation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, prerequisites, or how it differs from related backup tools. The minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns that would elevate the score.

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 action ('Create backup') and target ('database or files on remote server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like ssh_backup_list or ssh_backup_restore, which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling backup tools (ssh_backup_list, ssh_backup_restore, ssh_backup_schedule, ssh_db_dump), there's no indication of when this specific backup creation tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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