terminal.target_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'redacted' implying hidden information but does not specify what is redacted or why. Additionally, it omits behavioral traits like whether the tool requires an active terminal session or authentication, making it inadequate.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too brief, bordering on under-specification, but it effectively communicates the core action without verbosity.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is returned. 'Redacted SSH target details' is vague; it does not specify fields, format, or example output. For a details-retrieval tool, this is incomplete, especially with many sibling tools relying on context.

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 100% for the single parameter 'profile', which is described in the schema as 'SSH profile 名称'. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get redacted SSH target details' clearly identifies a retrieval action (Get) and the resource (SSH target details). However, it lacks specificity about which target and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like terminal.targets or terminal.info.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on when to invoke terminal.target_info instead of siblings like terminal.targets (likely listing all targets) or terminal.find.

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