ssh_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it adds no context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention side effects of closing connections, requirements for the connectionKey parameter, or what the tool returns. The listed actions merely mirror schema values and include an unsupported one.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified for a multi-action tool and includes an unsupported action ('get connection status'). The structure is front-loaded enough, but the content lacks precision and completeness.

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 three distinct actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fails to explain action selection, parameter dependencies, or expected results. It only gives a high-level verb and a partially inaccurate parenthetical list, leaving the agent to infer critical usage details from the schema alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the 'action' and 'connectionKey' parameters—it doesn't clarify that connectionKey is only required for 'close' or that 'list' ignores it. The schema's parameter descriptions already handle the basics.

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 identifies the resource (SSH connections) and uses 'Manage' as a verb, but it lists 'get connection status' as an action not present in the schema's enum (list, close, close_all). This makes the purpose partially misleading, though the core domain is evident.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use 'list' versus 'close' versus 'close_all', nor any comparison to the sibling tool 'ssh_execute'. The description simply enumerates example actions without explaining selection criteria or prerequisites.

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