Test SSH Connection

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context: it requires native SSH, runs host-key checks, returns only success status/generic message, and never exposes credentials or raw engine errors. This goes well beyond the structured annotation fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the key constraints. Every clause adds information; no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering side-effect posture, the description is largely sufficient: it names prerequisites, safety behavior, and output scope. It loses one point because parameter semantics for workspaceId are absent and no alternative tools are referenced.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely implies that connectionId refers to a saved SSH connection. workspaceId is not mentioned or explained, leaving a required contextual gap for the agent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Tests'), a specific resource ('saved SSH connection'), and a concrete mechanism ('CommandBus connection test and host-key checks'). It clearly distinguishes this from db.test_connection and other SSH tools by scope.

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 phrase 'saved SSH connection' establishes clear context for when this tool applies, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There are no exclusions, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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