Repair stale mux socket

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds that it removes ONLY the verified stale socket and that five safety guards are involved, which is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail what the guards check or what permissions are required.

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 the scoping constraint and usage condition front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 destructive socket-repair tool with no output schema and only 50% schema description coverage, the description omits what the five guards verify, whether ris_check_ssh_master should be run first, and the roles of alias and profile. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the definition is not complete enough for fully confident 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 50%: the alias parameter has no description, and the description never mentions either alias or profile. It therefore does not compensate for the undocumented alias or explain how the parameters identify the target socket, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('ControlPath socket'), scoped to 'exact, verified stale' with five safety guards. The second sentence distinguishes the scenario from siblings like ris_check_ssh_master and ris_open_ssh_master by naming when the master is gone and a dead socket blocks reconnection.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use when the master is gone but a dead socket blocks reconnection.' It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool to run first, so it falls short of a 5.

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