ssh_list_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses what is and is not returned (aliases and descriptions, never addresses or credentials), which is security-relevant transparency. It stops short of covering auth requirements, failure modes, or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage and return-scope. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be explained here, and there are no parameters to document. The description supplies the discovery/ordering context an agent needs to place this tool correctly in the ssh workflow.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The only parameter-like semantics introduced is that returned values are valid aliases usable with other tools, which is helpful framing but does not change the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the remote hosts reachable through this server') and immediately scopes it against siblings by clarifying that only aliases and descriptions are returned, not addresses or credentials. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from ssh_probe, ssh_run, and sftp_list without opening another schema.

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?

It gives explicit ordering guidance ('Call this first whenever you need to touch a remote machine') and states the goal of that call (learning valid aliases and permissions). It does not name specific alternatives or state when-not to use it, so it falls just short of the 5-level criteria.

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