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 states 'Manage automation hooks' which implies mutation capabilities (enable/disable), but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with mutation actions and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, it's front-loaded with minimal detail, which could be improved by adding a bit more context given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and involves mutation actions (enable/disable), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what hooks are, what they automate, potential side effects, or return values. For a tool managing SSH automation hooks with multiple actions, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 (action with enum values, hook for enable/disable). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what hooks are, provide examples, or clarify hook naming conventions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Manage automation hooks for SSH operations' states the general purpose (managing hooks) but is vague about what specific operations are possible. It mentions 'automation hooks' and 'SSH operations' but doesn't specify the exact actions (list/enable/disable/status) or how it differs from sibling tools like ssh_alert_setup or ssh_monitor that might also involve automation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose list vs. enable/disable, or how it relates to sibling tools like ssh_alert_setup or ssh_monitor that might handle similar automation aspects. Usage is implied only through the action parameter but not explained in the description.

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