Propose SSH config block

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the block includes multiplexing settings, a diff is produced, and nothing is written. Missing detail on multiplexing parameters or diff format keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the non-writing constraint is front-loaded right after the rendered artifact, which is the most decision-relevant fact.

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?

The description covers the return artifact (config block plus diff) in lieu of an output schema, which is helpful. However, for a 5-parameter tool with no required fields and almost no schema documentation, the description leaves how host/user/alias/controlPath shape the output entirely unexplained.

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 only 20% (just 'profile'), leaving host, user, alias and controlPath undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no semantics for any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb (render/propose) and resource (the managed ~/.ssh/config block plus a diff), and the phrase 'Does NOT write anything' implicitly separates it from the write counterpart ris_write_ssh_config. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but 'Does NOT write anything' strongly implies this is the preview path and that ris_write_ssh_config applies the change. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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