ssh_connection_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool affects only local in-memory connections, never remote state, and describes the effects of each action. This is transparent but could mention potential side effects like connection disruption or permissions needed.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then action details. No redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions that 'status' returns active connections with age and keepalive, but does not specify the output format. It also does not cover error scenarios. For a tool with two parameters and clear actions, it is mostly complete but could be slightly more detailed.

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%, and the description adds significant value by explaining the action parameter's enum values in context and specifying when the server parameter is required vs ignored. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 inspects and manages pooled SSH connections, distinguishing it from other SSH tools. It specifies the action parameter and the effects of each action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 each action (status is read-only, reconnect/disconnect modify connections) and notes that server is required for reconnect/disconnect. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like ssh_session_list, though the context of siblings is available.

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