ssh_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior. It states the action and alias storage but lacks details on authentication methods, connection error handling, idempotency, or 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?

The description is two terse sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every word is informative. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite good schema coverage, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., connection confirmation) and error handling. Given the complexity of an SSH connection tool and the lack of an output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

Since schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the baseline is 3. The description adds no significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'alias' is described in schema as 'Short name for this connection').

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 action (Connect) and resource (Ubuntu server via SSH), and highlights the key feature of storing the connection under an alias for subsequent commands. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_exec or ssh_disconnect.

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 implicitly indicates that the tool is a prerequisite for subsequent commands (e.g., ssh_exec), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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