list_ssh_hosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only listing operation and specifies the return format as a newline-separated list. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., missing config file) or config path, but for a simple list operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 appropriately concise, with a clear front-loaded action statement and a separate return-format section. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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's simplicity (zero parameters, no annotations, simple return), the description covers operation and output adequately. It could mention behavior when no hosts are configured or when the SSH config is missing, but this is not critical given the low complexity.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the data source ('SSH config') and the output format, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('host aliases from the SSH config'), making the action and scope unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like execute_ssh_command, get_host_info, and test_ssh_connection.

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 discovering available host aliases, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any reference to alternatives. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself leaves this to inference.

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