ssh_test_connection

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

Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that the tool 'Attempts to open an SSH session and run a trivial echo command.' This clarifies the non-destructive, read-only nature consistent with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. No contradictions.

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 well-structured and concise. It opens with a clear purpose, then breaks down into usage, parameter explanation, return values, and examples. Every sentence adds value; no verbosity.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers the action, prerequisite, return format, and provides examples. No gaps remain for the agent.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates: 'alias: Host alias to test (must exist in inventory).' This provides clear semantics and a prerequisite, making the parameter meaningful.

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 purpose: 'Verify that a host is reachable and authentication succeeds.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from siblings like ssh_run_command and ssh_add_host by focusing solely on connectivity and credential verification.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this immediately after ssh_add_host to confirm your credentials are correct.' Examples illustrate typical use cases, and the description implies when to use (e.g., debugging). No contradictory or missing guidance.

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