test_connection

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the operation is a test and mentions return values, but does not clarify whether a persistent connection is established, side effects, or error behavior. It gives some transparency but not full 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 concise, with two short sentences plus structured Args/Returns sections. It front-loads the primary purpose and every sentence contributes value, with no redundant information.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return values. It does not mention prerequisites like needing SSH_HOSTS configured or error handling, but the core is adequately complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining host_name as 'Named host from SSH_HOSTS config; uses default host if omitted.' This adds practical meaning beyond the bare string/null type in the schema.

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's action ('Test SSH connectivity') and resource ('to the target host'), distinct from sibling tools like check_network_connectivity by specifying SSH. It also notes the return of server identity, adding specificity.

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?

Usage is implied through 'Test SSH connectivity' and 'Verifies the connection is alive', but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like list_configured_hosts or close_connection. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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