arvan_ssh_check_connection

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

The description reveals the tool checks connectivity/auth and returns success and banner, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the return value. It does not contradict annotations (no annotation_contradiction).

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence states the core action and context, and the second specifies the return value. No unnecessary information is present.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not cover how to use authentication parameters, timeout, or what the banner format is. For a tool with this complexity, more detail is needed.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters (e.g., host, username, authentication methods). The tool requires host and has many optional parameters for different auth types, but the description offers no guidance on their usage. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verifies SSH connectivity/auth to a server, with 'Verify' as the verb and 'SSH connectivity/auth' as the resource. It also mentions the return value, distinguishing it from siblings like arvan_ssh_run or arvan_ssh_download_file.

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 indicates it is 'useful after provisioning', providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like other SSH tools. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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