检查 SSH 服务器

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the exact information returned (user, hostname, kernel), which is beyond the annotation metadata. It does not contradict annotations, and the network connection implication is consistent with the openWorldHint.

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 a single sentence that directly states the action and the returned information, with no redundant words or filler. It is maximally concise while covering the core purpose.

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 a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the primary action and result. However, it omits an explanation of the 'alias' parameter and any usage context, leaving gaps that force the agent to infer from the name or siblings. It is minimally adequate but not richly informative.

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 has a single 'alias' parameter with no description in the schema (coverage 0%). The tool description does not explain what 'alias' refers to or how to obtain valid values, relying purely on the parameter name and sibling tool context. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool connects to a server and returns user, hostname, and kernel information, which is a specific verb+resource with concrete output. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ssh_system_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tool relations. This lacks the explicit context needed for an agent to choose between ssh_check and similar tools.

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