RIS auth status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value by disclosing the deep=true escalation (runs the decisive key-only login test) and the openWorld reach implied by host/user/profile, but says nothing about return contents or side effects of the probe.

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?

One dense sentence plus a second for the deep=true escalation, front-loaded on what the snapshot contains. No filler, though the parenthetical list is slightly cramped.

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?

No output schema, so the description should carry more about what the snapshot returns and what 'hands-free' verdicts look like. It covers the diagnostic intent and the deep flag but leaves four of five parameters unexplained and the return shape unspecified.

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 20%: only 'profile' is documented. The description covers 'deep' implicitly but says nothing about host, user, or alias and how they interact with profile selection. The description does not compensate for the four undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific resource (local SSH-auth state) and enumerates what is snapshotted (key, managed config, mux master) plus the agent-runnability verdict. It doesn't explicitly name the close sibling ris_check_ssh_master or ris_test_key_only_auth, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. Given siblings like ris_check_ssh_master and ris_test_key_only_auth, the description fails to say why an agent would call this aggregator instead of them.

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