ssh_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb «Показать» and the 'what I already have' framing make clear this is a non-mutating inspection tool, though it does not explicitly address side effects, data freshness, or whether any live checks occur.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose first and the usage guidance second. There is no filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, with one optional boolean and no output schema, and the description covers purpose and usage timing well. However, the effect of the 'verbose' parameter is undocumented, and no hints about the shape or richness of the returned status are given.

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 only provides a boolean titled 'Verbose' with a default of false; the description never mentions this parameter or what verbose mode changes. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 the specific verb «Показать» and enumerates the exact resources it surfaces: saved servers, live connections, sessions, and tunnels. The second sentence frames it as the general 'what do I already have' overview, which distinguishes it from action-oriented sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent this is the first tool to start with and defines the triggering question ('what do I already have'). It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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