generate_ssh_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It covers dry-run default, write behavior, target differences, idempotency of user_ssh_config edits, and never touching outside markers. However, it does not detail file overwrite behavior or prerequisites (e.g., tailscale running).

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or verbosity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return values for both dry-run (config text) and write (instructions). It covers all parameters and key behaviors (idempotency, marker boundaries). Minor gaps exist (e.g., config format details, prerequisites), but overall it is well-rounded.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, especially for 'write' (explains dry-run vs write) and 'target' (dedicated file vs user_ssh_config with markers). It does not elaborate on 'user' or 'onlineOnly', but the schema descriptions suffice.

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 it generates SSH config Host blocks for tailnet nodes, with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('ssh-config Host blocks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ping_all or share_port, which are unrelated. The MagicDNS vs IP fallback adds specificity.

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 description provides clear context for use (generating SSH config for tailnet nodes) and explains the default dry-run, write behavior, and different targets. It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings, but the purpose is clear enough to avoid misuse.

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