remote_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral trait: a single automatic reconnect on disconnect (a side effect beyond a pure read). However, it says nothing about timeout behavior, cost, or what state the connection is left in after the reconnect, and gives no sense of the returned status.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the reconnect caveat appended; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse given that no other structured field supplies the missing detail, but there is no padding.

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 probe with no output schema, the description should describe what the returned status looks like and what the caller can act on. It omits the return semantics entirely, leaving the agent unable to interpret results, though the connection behavior it does describe is the key operational fact.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('查看 SSH 长连接状态'), which clearly identifies this as a connection health probe distinct from the exec/read/write siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to verify the persistent SSH connection before running other remote_* operations, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer instead. No alternatives or preconditions are named.

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