MCP SSH Manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists active SSH sessions but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires admin permissions, how sessions are defined (e.g., user sessions, system sessions), what the output format is, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all active SSH sessions'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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 SSH session management and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'active' session, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool in a crowded namespace with no structured support, more context is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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%, with the single parameter 'server' documented as 'Filter by server name' in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond this, so it relies entirely on the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('List') and resource ('all active SSH sessions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like ssh_session_close or ssh_session_start by focusing on listing rather than managing sessions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ssh_list_servers (which lists servers rather than sessions) or ssh_connection_status (which might show connection state), leaving some ambiguity.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., ssh_session_close, ssh_connection_status, ssh_list_servers), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't help an agent decide between this and similar tools, relying solely on the tool name.

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