ssh_list_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the response never includes secrets, only references. It details the exact fields returned, providing complete behavioral transparency.

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 front-loaded with purpose and use cases, followed by a disclosure on secrets, then a field list. It is structured logically, though slightly verbose; could be more concise.

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 zero parameters and presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description thoroughly covers the output fields and what is omitted, making the tool fully understandable.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but that's appropriate. It instead adds value by explaining output structure beyond schema coverage.

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 starts with 'List every SSH host this mcp-ssh-live server knows about, along with its runtime state', clearly specifying verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning discovery of targets, confirmation of config, and checking active jobs.

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 explicitly states use cases: to discover aliases, confirm config, and check active jobs before spawning. While it doesn't state when not to use, the context is clear and guides appropriate usage.

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