vault_ssh_agent_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' strongly implies a non-destructive read and it discloses the categories of data surfaced, but it says nothing about auth requirements, side effects, or whether it can be called when no agent is running.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb leads and the returned fields follow immediately.

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 simple read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, listing the returned data categories compensates well for the missing output schema. The only real gap is the undocumented socketPath input.

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?

The single optional socketPath parameter has 0% schema coverage, and the description does not explain it. The phrase 'socket path' appears only in the list of inspected outputs, which is more likely to confuse the agent about whether it is an input than to clarify the parameter.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('active SSH agent status'), and enumerates the concrete contents returned (Ed25519 signing keys, socket path, approval policies). It is distinguishable from the generic vault_status sibling, though it never names that distinction explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over vault_status or any other sibling. The agent must infer that this is the SSH-agent-specific diagnostic.

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