ssh_agent_ensure

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

Discloses key behaviors: starts a new agent if needed and sets environment variables. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing SSH_AUTH_SOCK or SSH_AGENT_PID). With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it is mostly clear.

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?

Two sentences, both essential: first explains what the tool does, second gives usage context. No redundant or extraneous text. Structure is front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema) and the description fully covers its purpose, behavior, and when to use it. It is complete for an environment setup tool.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per guidelines, baseline score for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate since none are needed.

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 'Ensure' with resource 'ssh-agent' and specifies outcomes: running, reachable, sets environment variables. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., ssh_exec, ssh_download) by focusing on agent management rather than file operations or execution.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this FIRST when SSH operations fail with agent-related errors.' This tells when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., if agent is already functional). The 'FIRST' strongly implies it is a prerequisite step.

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