lint_ssh_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Check' which implies a read-only operation, and the resource is a config file. However, it does not disclose permissions needed (e.g., root), potential side effects, or the nature of the baseline ruleset. The behavior is partially transparent.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every phrase earns its place, with no superfluous words.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core action and location. It specifies that the check is on the local host. The output schema exists to describe return values, so the description is sufficiently complete. Minor gaps: origin of the baseline ruleset is not mentioned.

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%, so the description must compensate. It references the `path` parameter and clarifies it is the path to sshd_config, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's name and default. No further details on format or validation are provided.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'sshd_config' at a specified path against a baseline hardening ruleset on the local host. It distinguishes the tool from all siblings, none of which deal with SSH config auditing.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context is implied (check SSH config hardening), but no alternatives are mentioned. Since there are no obvious sibling tools for this task, the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable but not ideal.

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