list_configured_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the data source (SSH_HOSTS_JSON) and that the return is a table of host names and connection details, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it may reveal sensitive connection details, or if any prerequisites exist, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a single opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by a short 'Returns' section. Every sentence earns its place; no waste, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown but indicated as present), the description is adequately complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The lack of explicit read-only or permission details is a minor gap given the inherently read-only nature of listing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool does (lists configured hosts) but there are no parameter semantics to elaborate on, as the input schema is empty.

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 lists all SSH hosts configured in SSH_HOSTS_JSON, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like test_connection or execute_command by focusing on configuration listing, not connecting or executing.

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 this is for viewing configured hosts before connecting, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or contrast it with alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided; usage context is only implied by the tool name and sibling list.

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