ssh_list_servers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: RBAC filtering, per-host capability fields, and specific failure expectations ('the signer will reject it'). It could further explain response behavior when no hosts are listed, but the provided detail is strong.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each field explanation earns its place by providing actionable guidance. No wasted words or vague 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?

Combined with the annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's role, its relationship to sibling tools, RBAC privacy implications, and capability-dependent behavior. An agent can safely invoke this tool and correctly interpret results without additional context.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; instead, it thoroughly explains the output fields, which is the relevant semantic content for this zero-input 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the hosts accessible to the caller with their capabilities.' It also clarifies scope ('hosts outside the user's RBAC groups are not listed') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a preflight discovery tool, not an execution or file-transfer tool.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'ALWAYS call before ssh_execute or ssh_session_open,' establishing when to use this tool. It also provides conditional guidance on when to avoid certain operations based on capabilities (e.g., 'allow_sudo=false → DO NOT attempt sudo'), which helps the agent avoid errors when using sibling tools.

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