ssh_fingerprint

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 only states the action without disclosing output format (e.g., MD5/SHA256), whether it reads from a local file, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 sentence with no filler words, efficiently stating the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and object. However, the extreme brevity contributes to missing behavioral details, though that is a completeness concern rather than a conciseness issue.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It lacks information about return values, fingerprint algorithm, and any side effects (e.g., does it rely on local ssh-keygen?). A more complete description would mention output type or usage parameters.

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 already describes keyPath as 'Path to key file' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, such as format or constraints. Since schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get fingerprint of an SSH key' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('fingerprint of an SSH key'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ssh_keygen (generates keys) and ssh_list_keys (lists keys) by focusing solely on fingerprint retrieval.

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 or any alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., key must exist) or typical scenarios. For a tool with no explicit alternatives, some context about intended use is still expected.

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