ssh_test_connection

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions measuring round-trip latency, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made to the server, nor does it explain error handling or the nature of the test (e.g., ping vs. SSH handshake). This leaves some behavioral details implicit.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and result, and includes the parameter scope without redundancy. Every word contributes to the understanding of the tool.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly mention what the tool returns (e.g., a success/failure status or latency values), but the phrase 'measure round-trip latency' implies the output. Given the low complexity, the description is nearly complete, though a brief note on the response format would make it fully self-contained.

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% and the schema already explains serverId ('The server ID to test. If omitted, tests all configured servers.'). The description essentially repeats this information ('to a specified server or all configured servers'), adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Test') and resource ('SSH connectivity') and adds the outcome ('measure round-trip latency'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_execute_command or ssh_list_servers, which have different purposes. The scope ('specified server or all configured servers') further clarifies the tool's function.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: testing connectivity and latency. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to select it. There's no misleading guidance, and the context is unambiguous.

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