ssh_alias

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively discloses that add and remove persist the alias mapping locally, list is read-only, and add requires the target server to already exist. It doesn't mention error handling (e.g., duplicate alias, removing a non-existent alias) but covers the core side effects and prerequisites.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states the overall purpose, second explains the action parameter and per-action requirements, third covers persistence and the prerequisite for add. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words or padding.

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 three-parameter tool with an enum action and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers all actions, required parameters, persistence behavior, and the add prerequisite. It omits specifics about return values (e.g., what list returns) and error cases, but these are minor for a CRUD-like alias manager. Given the simplicity, the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the 'action' parameter selects add/remove/list, that 'alias' is required for add and remove, and 'server' is required for add. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions (e.g., 'for add/remove') by specifying conditional requirements and the role of each parameter in different actions.

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 purpose: 'Manages local name aliases that let you reference a configured server by a shorter or alternative name.' It then breaks down the three actions, making the function unambiguous. Though it doesn't explicitly name ssh_command_alias as a distinct sibling, the focus on 'server' aliases versus 'command' aliases makes the differentiation clear without reading the schema.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need to manage server name aliases) but provides no exclusions or references to sibling tools. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of ssh_command_alias' or mention alternative tools for similar operations. The usage context is implied through the purpose, but the lack of explicit comparison or 'when not to use' guidance leaves a gap.

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