ssh_list_servers

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

The description states it lists configured servers, implying a read-only operation. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It is transparent but lacks detail on what information is returned (e.g., hostnames, IPs) or whether it lists all servers ever configured.

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, clear sentence. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the action. No redundancy or extra 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. While adequate for a simple list tool, it could be more complete by clarifying what 'configured' means or what fields are returned. Sibling tools suggest a broader context, but this description does not leverage it.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed. Baseline 4 applies as per instructions for 0 params.

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 ('list') and the resource ('all configured SSH servers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_connection_status and ssh_session_list, which focus on connections or sessions rather than server definitions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident: use it to see the list of configured servers. No exclusions or context are provided, which is acceptable for a straightforward list operation.

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