List SSH Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds that it lists 'summaries' which implies a high-level view, but does not disclose what fields are included, whether it returns all tasks or paginated, or any specifics about the output format. With annotations covering the safety, the description provides minimal additional behavioral context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, very concise, and directly states the purpose. No fluff or redundant information. It's appropriately brief for a simple list operation.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only list operation), the description might be sufficient. However, there is an output schema (not shown) that could provide details, and the description does not mention any pagination, filtering, or ordering. It also doesn't clarify the difference between 'task summaries' and other task-related tools. The presence of sibling tools like list_task_runs suggests there is nuance missing, so it's not fully 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?

There is one parameter, workspaceId, and the schema coverage is 0% (the property description is empty). The description says 'for a workspace' which implies workspaceId is needed, but it doesn't clarify the semantics of the workspaceId (e.g., where to find it, if it's optional, or if it filters by workspace). With no param descriptions in the schema, the description should compensate, but it provides only a vague hint. Since it's the only parameter and the description mentions workspace, it adds minimal value, but not enough for a higher score.

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 it lists saved SSH task summaries for a workspace, using the verb 'list' with a specific resource (SSH task summaries) and a scope (workspace). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like unfour.ssh.list_task_runs or unfour.ssh.get_task, so it could be confused with those.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention that this tool is for listing task summaries (metadata) as opposed to task runs or individual task details, nor does it mention any preconditions or context. Sibling tools list_task_runs, get_task, and others exist but the description offers no differentiation.

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