ssh_conn_is_connected

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses timing expectations (a few ms normally, at most ~5s) and the side effect that a dead connection is detected and dropped. It does not state whether it blocks, nor whether any auth/permission is needed, but the drop-on-failure behavior is real added value.

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?

Front-loaded with the core guarantee ('real round trip... not just a cached flag') followed by the failure-recovery hint; every sentence earns its place. The Returns block slightly duplicates the output schema, which costs a point.

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?

With an output schema present, explaining the bool return is not strictly required, and the description covers timing, side effects, and next steps. The one gap is that it never says WHICH connection is checked given the zero-parameter signature (current/default host context is left implicit).

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly further by naming the follow-up call and its argument shape (ssh_conn_connect(host_name=...)), hinting how the host is selected after a failed check.

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 states a specific verb+resource — 'Check whether there is a WORKING SSH connection' — and sharpens it by defining 'working' as a real round trip rather than a cached flag. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the sibling ssh_conn_status, which an agent must distinguish on its own.

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?

Usage is implied (use it to detect connections that died while idle) and a follow-up action is given for the False case (reconnect with ssh_conn_connect). But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or contrast against ssh_conn_status, leaving the agent to infer which connectivity check to call.

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