Get autostart status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds no extra behavioral context, such as return format or potential side effects. The description is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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 short but includes a redundant first sentence that simply restates the title. The second sentence provides the meaningful context about SSH configurations. It could be more concise by removing the first sentence.

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 getter with no parameters, the description is mostly adequate, but it doesn't specify the return format (e.g., boolean, string) or any details about the status value. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide this context. The tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline score of 4 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 states the tool retrieves the autostart status for the user's SSH configurations, which is specific and clear. It distinguishes from the sibling enable_autostart tool by being a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative. The redundancy with the title slightly reduces clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like termix_hosts_enable_autostart_ssh_configuration. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where this getter is appropriate. An agent would need to infer its usage from the name alone.

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