ssh_discover

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds important behavioral context: it is an 'active network scan' that is 'noisy', requires user confirmation and authorization, and is 'RISKY — opt-in'. It also discloses the mandatory confirm=true requirement, which goes beyond annotation metadata.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, followed by a single warning paragraph. Every sentence contributes either to purpose, risk, or usage constraints. No redundancy.

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 tool is well-contextualized: purpose, risk, authorization, and confirmation are all covered. However, with no output schema, the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., list of hosts, IPs). Despite that, the name 'discover' and the goal 'find a target' imply the result, so it is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm's role ('confirm=true is required'), and cidr is implicitly defined by 'Scan a CIDR'. However, the port parameter is not addressed beyond its default, leaving potential ambiguity about whether it is the SSH port or a custom scan port. Some meaning is added but not enough for a 0% coverage 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Scan a CIDR for hosts with an open SSH port.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ssh_reachable (checking a single host) or ssh_exec (running commands). It further narrows the purpose with 'Use it ONLY to help find a target whose address the user doesn't know'.

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 gives strong when-to-use guidance ('help find a target whose address the user doesn't know') and when-not-to-use ('never by default', only on authorized networks). It stops short of naming alternative tools explicitly, but the exclusionary conditions make the intended usage unambiguous.

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