ssh_check

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as what the probe entails (e.g., ping, SSH handshake), how errors are reported, or the effect of the timeout parameter. It lacks transparency beyond the basic purpose.

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 concise (one sentence) with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action. It could be more structured but is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of leaving hosts empty (probing all inventory) or the role of timeout. An output schema exists but the description does not hint at the return format.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain any parameters (hosts, timeout). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and types already in the 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 clearly states the tool probes connectivity to hosts or the whole inventory, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ssh_exec or ssh_hosts, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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 for checking SSH connectivity but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_hosts or ssh_exec. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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