ssh_host_list

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: it discloses that secrets (passwords, sudo passwords, passphrases) are deliberately omitted, that output depends on which config file is active, and that config_path reflects that state. This is exactly the safety/state context annotations would otherwise supply.

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 purpose and return fields, and the security rationale is well placed. It is slightly repetitive, restating the 'don't open the file' admonition three times, and the return-value block duplicates the output schema.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, safety posture, state dependency, and return contents; an agent has everything needed to call it correctly without opening the config file.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly does not invent parameter semantics and instead documents the returned shape.

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 precise verb+resource ('List all configured SSH hosts') and enumerates the returned fields (key, alias, description). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like ssh_host_update and ssh_host_remove.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative paths: use ssh_conn_add_host/ssh_host_update/ssh_host_remove to modify hosts, and never read the TOML file. It also explains the config-file switching behavior tied to ssh_host_use_config, giving full when/when-not guidance.

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