ssh_monitor

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

The description reveals important behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: close and reload drop live connections while the other actions only read. Annotations already signal idempotent and non-destructive, so this is additive rather than repetitive, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 scope and followed by practical guidance. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundant filler or repetition of schema content.

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 only two parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential usage guidance, side-effect differences, and conceptual scope. It could explicitly enumerate which action to use in which scenario, but the existing context 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 both parameters already well described in the schema. The description adds a high-level summary of actions but does not materially improve on the schema's per-parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb-and-resource purpose: managing SSH connections themselves, listing profiles, testing, reporting pool stats, closing, and reloading. It explicitly distinguishes itself from tools that operate on machines behind the connections, which differentiates it from the many ssh_ sibling tools.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: 'Start here on a machine you have not used yet' and recommends that 'test names the state before anything else runs.' It does not explicitly name which sibling tools to use instead, but its scope exclusion ('not the machines behind them') makes the appropriate context clear.

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