ssh_list_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool reads from ~/.ssh/config and lists both active connections and Host entries, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, how 'active' is determined, or what happens if the config file is missing. This is adequate but not rich.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and provides a practical usage example. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool lists, the source, and when to invoke it. The mention of 'find the right connectionId' hints at the output's purpose. It could additionally describe the output format, but for this simple tool, the coverage is strong.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter explanation because none is needed. It does provide context about what the output is used for (finding the right connectionId), which indirectly clarifies the purpose of any returned data.

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's function: 'List active SSH connections and Host entries from ~/.ssh/config'. It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource (SSH connections and Host entries), and provides the source file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_connect or ssh_exec, which perform actions rather than listing.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Call this when the user mentions a server by name (e.g. "beta server") to find the right connectionId.' This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Since the task is simple and the trigger condition is well-defined, this is sufficient.

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