ssh_conn_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the in_progress/handle_id return shape, the wait cap, the polling contract via ssh_cmd_check_status, and a concurrency constraint ('only one such operation runs at a time... fails with a busy error'). These are non-obvious runtime behaviors not captured by any structured field.

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 purpose and return shape, followed by the long-running behavior. The async paragraph is long but every clause (wait cap, handle_id, poll target, busy error) is load-bearing, so it stays efficient.

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 parameterless read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and the full async/concurrency contract. An agent has everything needed to invoke and re-invoke it correctly.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema, and it introduces no spurious parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get essential SSH connection status information') and even enumerates the returned fields (user, working directory, OS type), which helps separate it from ssh_conn_is_connected. However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 gives clear guidance for the async case ('Do not call it again meanwhile', poll ssh_cmd_check_status), but offers no guidance on when to use this versus ssh_conn_is_connected or ssh_conn_host_info. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated.

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