session_connect

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses basic behavior (SSH connection) and mentions authentication methods. But it does not explain what the return value looks like, error handling, timeout settings, or whether the connection is persistent. Lacks detail on 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter guidance. No unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and basic parameter use, but lacks details about return values, error scenarios, prerequisites, or session lifecycle. For a connection tool, more context would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds value by explaining that password and key_file are for ad-hoc connections, and clarifies target as IP/hostname or alias. This provides context beyond the schema field descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Connect to a Linux host via SSH', specifying the verb (connect) and resource (Linux host via SSH). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like session_disconnect, exec, and other system 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?

Provides limited guidance: mentions use of password or key_file for ad-hoc connections, implying pre-configured aliases don't need them. However, no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like exec or when not to use (e.g., for non-SSH hosts). No comparison with sibling tools.

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