ssh_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is a read-only status view and what output fields will be shown, but it does not mention whether an active session is required, what happens when there are no active connections, or any side effects.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and resource, then adds the relevant output details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource, the scope, and the returned fields. It could add a line about prerequisites or behavior with no active sessions, but this is a minor gap for such a simple operation.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The description's 'all active SSH connections' clarifies the scope without needing to describe parameters.

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 ('Show') and a clear resource ('status of all active SSH connections'), then lists the exact data fields included: host, uptime, and command count. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_history, ssh_logs, and ssh_exec, which have different purposes.

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 makes it clear this tool is for viewing connection status, not for executing commands or transferring files, so an agent can infer when to reach for it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use ssh_logs for historical records'.

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