ssh_sessions

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

The annotations already disclose that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the 'active' scope but no further behavioral context such as what fields are returned, whether root access is needed, or how sessions are defined. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning, which is ideal for this level of simplicity.

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, read-only, zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally sufficient to select and invoke it. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify what information each listed SSH session contains or any caveats, leaving the expected result shape somewhat underspecified.

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 and the input schema is empty, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. This matches the baseline expected for a no-parameter 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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active SSH sessions'), and this resource is unique among the many sibling tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with similar list-oriented siblings, but the entity it targets is unmistakable.

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 intended use is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to see active SSH sessions. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of prerequisites like permissions, and no comparison to alternatives such as list_processes or get_logs.

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