remote-ssh-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value (session_id) which is helpful, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, error conditions, session management behavior, or what happens with the 'force_new' parameter. For a security-sensitive connection tool with 8 parameters, 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial behavioral information about the return value. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex SSH connection tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return value information but lacks details about authentication flows, error handling, session lifecycle, or integration with sibling tools. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant contextual gaps for proper tool selection and 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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('Connect to') and resource ('remote SSH server'), specifying exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ssh_exec or ssh_disconnect by focusing on establishing the initial connection rather than executing commands or terminating sessions.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'Returns session_id for subsequent commands,' suggesting this is the first step in an SSH workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like reusing existing sessions or provide clear exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.

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