Test true key-only login

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-interaction profile is covered. The description usefully adds the execution mechanism (BatchMode, no interactive auth) and that it classifies an outcome, but it does not describe the returned classification or any side effects, so it adds only moderate value beyond 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 action and mechanism, with no filler. Efficient and easy to scan, though the second sentence's 'Classifies whether...' clause could be tightened.

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 an SSH auth diagnostic with 5 parameters at 20% coverage and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and the two possible outcomes but leaves both the parameters and the result structure underspecified. It is adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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' is documented), so the description must compensate for the other four parameters, yet it mentions none of host, user, alias, or timeoutMs. With low coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, an agent gets no help on how to target the test.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Run the decisive key-only SSH test') and even specifies the mechanism (BatchMode, no password/keyboard-interactive). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it never names which sibling (e.g. ris_check_ssh_master, ris_auth_status) it replaces or complements, 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'decisive' and the mention of the 'multiplexing fallback' hint at a workflow position, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus the many other auth/SSH siblings. The agent must guess where this fits relative to ris_check_ssh_master and ris_auth_status.

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