ssh_list_connections

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

The description conveys a read-only listing behavior and implies no destructive side effects. However, since no annotations are provided, it carries the full burden and does not clarify what counts as 'active', whether output is scoped to the current user, or how connection status is determined.

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 five words and contains no filler. It front-loads the action and resource with maximum efficiency.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description is mostly complete: an agent knows what the tool does and can invoke it. Minor gaps around output format and the precise scope of 'all active SSH connections' prevent a higher score, but the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the input schema is already complete. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline 4 applies for parameterless tools.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all active SSH connections'. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like ssh_connect, ssh_execute, and ssh_disconnect, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_network_connections.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_network_connections or scan_network. The intended use is implied but not stated, and there are no exclusions or conditions.

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