Open SSH Session

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description confirms session creation but adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., session lifecycle, need for cleanup). Given existing annotations, the description provides minimal added value.

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, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a tool with many parameters, though some usage guidance could be added without bloating.

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?

Despite high parameter count and complexity, the description lacks preconditions, return value hints (though output schema exists), and security context. The tool's open-world nature is not elaborated.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter interactions or dependencies.

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 verb 'opens' and resource 'SSH session', and the scope 'with authentication'. It distinguishes from siblings like ssh_close_session and ssh_list_sessions, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like ssh_ping or ssh_resolve_host.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ssh_ping for connectivity check, ssh_mutation_plan for dry-run). No prerequisites or usage context are provided.

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