ssh_hosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It clearly indicates the tool reads ~/.ssh/config and returns structured connection info, and it frames the behavior as a pre-flight lookup rather than a connection action. This is sufficient for a simple read-style utility, though it does not mention potential errors like an absent config file.

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 compact, scannable, and front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence lists return fields and the intended downstream use, all without filler or repetition.

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 the zero-parameter interface and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete for invocation. It explains where data comes from, what fields are returned, and how the result relates to ssh_exec. It could add an edge case note about a missing config file, but nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot benefit from or contradict the input schema. It indirectly explains the main data being produced (host connection fields), which is useful context. With no parameters, schema coverage is trivially complete and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('列出') with a concrete resource (~/.ssh/config) and enumerates the exact returned fields (alias, HostName, User, Port, IdentityFile). It also ties the purpose to 'ssh_exec', which distinguishes it from neighboring tools like ros_topic_* or exec_cmd.

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?

States the primary use case: discovering which hosts are available for direct connection with ssh_exec. This gives the agent a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the relationship with ssh_exec is clearly implied.

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