ssh_connect

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the basic action. It does not state that the connection is persistent, how authentication works, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description should compensate but fails to do so, resulting in a low score.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more informative without compromising brevity. The structure is straightforward.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention return values, connection lifecycle, or error conditions. More context is needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain when to use password vs private_key, which would be valuable. Thus, the score stays at 3.

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 '建立SSH连接' clearly indicates the tool establishes an SSH connection. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ssh_connect_by_config_host or ssh_connect_by_name, which serve similar purposes. The verb and resource are specific, but lacking differentiation lowers the score.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a running SSH server or authentication setup. The absence of any usage context reduces the score.

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