ssh_test_connection

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool tests connection without creating a session, but it does not explain what happens on success/failure, the return value, timeout behavior, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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, well-formed sentence of 13 words that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate for understanding its basic function. However, it lacks crucial information about the return value, which an agent needs to interpret the result of the test.

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 with a clear description for parameter 'serverId'. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond.

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 ('Test SSH/SFTP connection') and the resource ('to a configured server'). It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by adding 'without creating a session', which sets it apart from ssh_connect and ssh_connect_by_id.

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 implies usage for testing connectivity without side effects, and the contrast with session-creating tools is clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like ssh_test_all_connections.

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