ssh_analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses the scope of data collection, but it does not mention whether the diagnostic changes anything on the server, whether elevated permissions are needed, how long it may take, or how connection failures are handled.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then provides a scannable list of collected data. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one required parameter and no nested objects, the description adequately informs an agent what to expect from the diagnostic. The lack of an output schema is partially offset by the explicit list of collected information; minor gaps remain around return format and failure behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% — connectionId is fully described as the connection ID of the server to analyze. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Run a comprehensive diagnostic on a connected remote server') and enumerates concrete categories it collects: system info, CPU/memory/disk, network ports, recent errors, Docker containers, and GPU status. This clearly differentiates ssh_analyze from siblings like ssh_status and ssh_logs.

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 phrase 'in one shot' implies using this tool when a broad overview is needed rather than running multiple individual commands, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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