ssh_get_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or the format of the returned data. Given it's a getter, some transparency is expected, but the description provides minimal information beyond the tool's name.

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 short sentence, which is efficient and easy to parse. It avoids unnecessary detail. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, but for a simple tool this level of conciseness is 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the returned configuration looks like or any important edge cases. It does not. The tool is simple, but the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior or response format.

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 schema already documents the only parameter 'hostname' with a description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely referencing 'host' in the text. Since the baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, this is a reasonable score.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('SSH configuration' for a host). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_connect or ssh_execute by focusing on configuration retrieval. However, it does not specify what 'configuration' includes (e.g., hostname, port, user), leaving some ambiguity.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether a host must be defined in an SSH config file, or when it would be more appropriate than ssh_connect. The description simply states what it does.

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