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. It mentions 'comprehensive health check' but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., checks performed, output format, side effects, or error handling). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves system diagnostics.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of a health check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive' includes, what metrics are returned, or how results are formatted, leaving the agent with inadequate information for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (server and detailed). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'comprehensive' might relate to the detailed parameter, but this is minimal. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'perform' and the resource 'comprehensive health check on remote server', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like ssh_service_status or ssh_monitor by emphasizing a broader 'comprehensive' check, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 like ssh_monitor or ssh_service_status. The description implies usage for server health assessment but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling tool names alone.

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