panelica_ssh_users_get_v1_ssh_users_id

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful context by specifying the required OAuth scope (accounts:read) and the HTTP method. This gives the agent the authorization information needed before calling the tool. There is no contradiction between the description and 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then gives the HTTP path, category, scope, and read-only nature in a few structured lines. Every line carries usable information without unnecessary prose.

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 fetch by ID with a single documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It includes the endpoint, required scope, and resource category; no additional return-format details are necessary because the operation is straightforward.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the only parameter, id, as a path parameter. The description adds no new param detail beyond the HTTP path notation, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 names the exact verb and resource ("Get SSH user") and includes the HTTP path GET /v1/ssh-users/:id, making it clear this retrieves a single SSH user by ID. This differentiates it from list-type SSH user tools and other resource-specific getters.

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 intended usage is implied by the endpoint and read-only description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives, such as listing SSH users or using other SSH user management endpoints. The required scope is stated, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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