remote_ssh_targets

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description adds real behavioral context: add/update verify the remote root, may open a terminal for authentication, changes apply only to the next call, and no passwords are accepted or stored. It stops short of describing what a remove destroys or connection-state side effects.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the action inventory is front-loaded. Each sentence carries distinct information (actions, auth behavior, persistence semantics).

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?

For an 8-parameter, mutation-capable tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs (auth flow, next-call application, no stored credentials). It does not describe return shapes for list/status, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 88%, so the schema already documents ssh, root, port, create, target, and controlPersist well. The description adds only the no-password/auth constraint and does not clarify parameter interactions (e.g., which params apply to which action), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs (list/add/update/remove/connect/disconnect/check) and their resources (SSH targets, ControlMaster), so the tool's scope is immediately legible. It is a bundled multi-action tool, which slightly blurs a single purpose, and it never explicitly differentiates itself from the bash/read/write siblings.

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?

Usage is implied through action-level notes (add/update verify the remote root, connect/disconnect/check a ControlMaster) but there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance or comparison to alternatives such as invoking ssh through bash. The agent must infer which action to pick from the enum.

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