ssh_list_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, local, opens no SSH connections, and deliberately omits secrets. This is exemplary transparency for a list tool.

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 and well-structured, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds unique value: return fields, safety, secrets, parameters, and use case.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists return fields, describes read-only behavior, clarifies no secrets, states no parameters, and gives a concrete usage scenario.

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 schema is empty and the description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters,' leaving no ambiguity. Since there are zero parameters, no further semantics are required, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 'Lists all SSH servers defined in the loaded configuration' with specific verb and resource, and enumerates the return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the server list, not sessions or tunnels.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Useful as a first call to discover which server names other tools accept.' It also notes read-only and local behavior, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it.

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