brancher_ssh_info

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the return value, omitting whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, what happens if the node does not exist, or any error conditions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too brief to cover necessary details, making it merely adequate rather than excellent. It earns its place but misses opportunities to add value without much extra length.

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 info retrieval tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the essential return fields (host, user, port). However, it does not address error scenarios, preconditions (node existence), or side effects. Annotations are absent, leaving behavioral gaps. Completeness is acceptable but not thorough.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the required node_name parameter. The description adds only 'for a Brancher node', implying node_name identifies a node but failing to explain valid values, case sensitivity, or where to obtain the name. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the tool returns SSH connection details (host, user, port) for a Brancher node, which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates well from siblings like brancher_list (listing) or brancher_exec (executing commands), leaving no ambiguity about this tool's role.

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 (e.g., use it after listing nodes to get connection info, or before executing SSH commands). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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