ssh_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention what 'health' means, potential side effects (read-only?), required permissions, or whether it impacts SSH connections. The description is vague about its behavior beyond a simple health check.

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 one short sentence. It is concise but too brief, lacking adequate context. It does not earn its place with sufficient detail, so it is not an optimal use of space.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how health is assessed. For a tool with a simple parameter schema, the description should provide more context on the health check process, but it does not.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds only general context. The input schema already describes the optional parameter and its behavior (checks all if not provided). The description adds no extra semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 health of SSH connections. It specifies the verb 'check' and resource 'health of SSH connections'. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools; 'ssh_connect' and 'ssh_execute' might also imply health checks, so purpose is clear but not distinct.

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 by stating 'check the health', but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_connect or ssh_list_connections. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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