ssh_connection_status

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

No annotations are available, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies both read and write operations but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether cleanup disconnects all sessions) or prerequisites (e.g., authentication). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact.

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 concise sentence that captures the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with key verbs, but could be more structured to separate the two aspects.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks context about return values (e.g., status format) and the tool's relationship to sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for complex scenarios.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (action and server). The description adds no additional value beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's dual function: checking status and managing the connection pool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ssh_session_list that also provide connection status information.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, the sibling tools ssh_session_close and ssh_session_list may overlap, but the description does not clarify when to choose this one.

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