ssh_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Connect' implies establishing a persistent session, but the description doesn't specify what happens after connection (e.g., whether it maintains state, returns a connection handle, or has timeout behavior). It mentions SSH but doesn't detail security implications, error handling, or what constitutes a successful connection.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., connection status, session ID), error conditions, or behavioral details like persistence. Given the complexity of SSH connections and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the basic action of connecting. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., password vs privateKeyPath) or provide context beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action ('connect') and target ('to a remote server via SSH'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like ssh_disconnect or ssh_exec by specifying the connection establishment function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all SSH-related siblings beyond the basic verb.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing authentication credentials, nor does it explain when to choose this over other SSH tools like ssh_exec (which might handle both connection and command execution). The context is implied but not articulated.

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