ssh_connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It describes authentication options but omits side effects (creating a persistent connection), failure conditions (unreachable host, bad credentials), or return value (connectionId). This significant gap is not covered elsewhere.

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 two-sentence description is tight: first sentence states purpose, second covers principal usage patterns. No redundant text.

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 the 8-parameter schema and no output schema, the description only partially captures the tool's behavior. It doesn't explain the return value (connectionId defaulting), when the connection is established (e.g., persistent session), or how to use it with sibling tools. The rich schema descriptions compensate for parameter semantics, but behavioral completeness is lacking.

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 has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a key clarification: you can pass either a profile or a Host alias, or provide host/username/key directly, which helps disambiguate which parameters to use together. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 states the tool connects to a remote server via SSH and specifies the supported ways to specify the target (profile, host alias, or direct host/username/key). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_exec, ssh_list_connections, and file transfer tools.

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 explains how to provide connection information (via profile, host alias, or direct host/username/key) but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh_exec (which requires an existing connection) or ssh_list_connections. The usage is implied by the tool name and sibling context but not stated.

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