Check multiplexing master

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so read-only safety is covered. The description adds meaningful methodology detail: it uses both `ssh -O check` control-socket inspection AND a functional `ssh true` probe, implying a two-part verification. But it does not describe the outcome semantics (e.g., what constitutes pass/fail, how a stale socket differs from no master).

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?

A single, tightly packed sentence with no filler. The core action and the two verification methods are front-loaded and both earn their place.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description explains the mechanism but not the result interpretation (e.g., success/failure distinction, connection prerequisites) or the alias/profile usage, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent needing to act on the result.

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 50%; the 'profile' parameter is documented in the schema, and 'alias' is left undocumented. The description mentions neither parameter, so it does not compensate for the 50% coverage gap. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Check the ControlMaster') and specifies exactly how the check is performed ('via ssh -O check AND a functional ssh true probe'). This distinguishes it from siblings like ris_open_ssh_master or ris_repair_stale_socket.

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 this is a diagnostic/detection tool for the SSH multiplexing master, which places it relative to open/repair siblings. However it does not explicitly say when to use it versus ris_open_ssh_master or ris_repair_stale_socket, nor any prerequisites.

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