ssh_host_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and adds the alias/ssh_connect relationship, but it does not disclose details such as tag-filtering behavior, authentication requirements, or output shape.

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 two short sentences: the first states the core action and the second provides a useful cross-reference to ssh_connect. There is no redundant language or filler.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is adequate but leaves the optional tag filter unmentioned and gives no output format, which matters because there is no output schema. The alias/ssh_connect note partially compensates, but the definition would benefit from one sentence about tag filtering.

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%, and the only parameter, tag, already has the description 'Filter by tag'. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved SSH host configurations'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also states how the output relates to ssh_connect (by alias), which distinguishes it from management siblings like ssh_host_add/update/remove and from ssh_history.

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 implies when to use it—when a caller needs to see available saved SSH hosts—and mentions that the resulting aliases can be used with ssh_connect. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusion conditions.

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