ssh_list_servers

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds significant context: it returns only non-secret metadata and connection status, and explains that SSH credentials are private server-side configuration, so the agent must never request passwords. This goes beyond the annotation baseline and prevents dangerous assumptions.

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 front-loaded with purpose and contains several useful sentences, but it is slightly longer than necessary. The password instruction and usage rule are valuable, though the secret-credentials sentence could be merged with the password rule to reduce redundancy. Overall, it is well-structured and each sentence contributes.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description clearly states what the tool returns (non-secret metadata and connection status) and emphasizes the importance of the alias for subsequent operation tools. It also addresses credential handling, which is critical for a discovery tool. Missing minor details like pagination or sorting are not significant for this use case.

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 schema already fully describes the single optional parameter: 'Optional alias, host/IP fragment, or username used to filter configured servers.' The description repeats this list without adding format details, examples, or edge cases. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 and resource: 'List configured SSH servers' and clearly identifies the optional filtering by alias, host/IP, or username. It distinguishes itself from sibling operation tools by explaining that it returns metadata and the exact alias needed for them, making its role 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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Use ssh_list_servers when the user has not supplied an exact configured alias.' It also includes a critical behavioral rule, 'Never ask the user for a password,' preventing a common misuse. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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