ssh_list_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that profiles include host, port, username, and privateKeyPath, and explicitly asserts security by never exposing the private key or passphrase. This is sufficient for a non-destructive list operation.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and immediately provides key details about the contents and security. No unnecessary words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the return data (host, port, username, privateKeyPath) and security exclusions. It could specify the structure (e.g., array of objects) but is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by detailing what information the output contains and what it does not expose, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 tool lists available SSH profiles and specifies the included fields (host, port, username, privateKeyPath) and what is never exposed (private key or passphrase). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools which perform actions like connect, execute, or file operations.

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 implicitly guides usage as a utility to view available profiles before connecting. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the simple listing nature is self-explanatory and there is no competing tool.

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