ssh_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the runtime behavior — it probes the host and returns identity fields plus latency, and it is positioned as a non-mutating check to run before real commands. It does not mention auth requirements, timeout behavior, or whether the probe leaves any trace on the host, so it is good but not complete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the usage trigger, with no filler. The parenthetical return list is slightly dense but earns its place by previewing the diagnostic payload.

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 values need no further explanation, and a one-parameter diagnostic tool has limited surface to cover. The description addresses purpose, usage trigger, and runtime behavior; the only real gap is host-parameter format guidance.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'host' has no documentation anywhere. The description never clarifies the expected format (hostname, IP, user@host, or ssh-config alias), which is exactly the ambiguity that matters for a connectivity tool with a low-coverage schema.

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 names a specific operation (test connectivity), its target (a host), and exactly what it returns (uname, uptime, id, round-trip latency). It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling ssh_run by framing itself as a pre-flight diagnostic, so an agent can pick it out of the ssh_* family without opening a 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 clear context: 'Use to diagnose cannot connect problems before running real commands,' which routes the agent to use this before ssh_run/ssh_run_many. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or naming of the sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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