ssh_check_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states it returns status and diagnostics, implying a read-only operation, but does not detail timeout behavior or network impact.

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 concise with two clear paragraphs: first stating purpose, second detailing diagnostics and parameter. Every sentence is informative and necessary.

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 check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and diagnostics adequately. Could be improved with return format details.

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 description explains the 'host' parameter as an SSH host alias from config and mentions default behavior, adding value beyond the schema's title and type. Schema coverage is 0%, so this compensates well.

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 checks SSH connection liveliness, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., ssh_run, ssh_read_file) by focusing on connectivity diagnostics.

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 mentions what to check if connection fails (host reachability, key/agent/config), providing context for use. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the scope is well-defined.

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