ssh_network_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 the tool 'shows' data, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm it. It lacks disclosure of any side effects, authorization needs, or limitations.

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?

Very concise two sentences. Front-loads the purpose. No extra words. However, the Args section is redundant with the schema, but that's acceptable.

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 description is minimal for a tool that likely returns complex network data. Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not hint at the return structure or any nuances like whether it shows only active interfaces, IPv4/IPv6, etc.

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 description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: 'session_name: SSH session to use' identifies the parameter as an SSH session selector, but does not explain what 'default' means or how session names are managed.

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 'Show network interfaces, IP addresses, and basic network configuration' uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource (network info). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cpu_info, memory_usage, etc., which focus on other system aspects.

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. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for network-specific queries compared to general system_info or other diagnostics. No exclusions or context provided.

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