ssh_diagnose

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

The description discloses the internal checks (ssh-agent, keys, known_hosts, config, test connection). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It is transparent about what the tool does, though it could explicitly state it is read-only.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 description explains the tool's actions and usage context but omits output format (no output schema). For a diagnostic tool, describing the return result would be beneficial. Otherwise, it is fairly complete given the parameter count.

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% with clear descriptions. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only provides tool-level context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 'Diagnose SSH connectivity issues' and lists specific checks (ssh-agent, keys, known_hosts, config, test connection). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_exec or ssh_test by focusing on diagnosis rather than 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 BEFORE attempting SSH operations if you suspect connectivity issues, or AFTER a failed SSH operation to understand why it failed.' This clearly specifies when to use vs. not use the tool.

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