ssh_git_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately conveys that the tool performs a test/verification of SSH authentication, implying a non-destructive diagnostic. However, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, potential prerequisites (e.g., key loaded via ssh_agent_ensure), or failure modes. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, both information-dense without redundancy. The primary action and purpose are front-loaded, followed by a concrete usage condition. No filler words; every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and what it verifies. The only gap is the lack of explicit return-value specification, but given the diagnostic nature, the outcome (success/failure) is implied. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (host and user), including defaults and constraints. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional parameter detail, which is acceptable. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema sufficiently documents the parameters without needing extra elaboration.

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 states a specific action ('Test Git-over-SSH authentication') and clearly identifies the resource (hosting providers like GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket). It is unambiguous and distinct from generic SSH tools by focusing on Git-over-SSH. The mention of verifying the SSH key registration and working status adds actionable clarity.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when git clone/pull/push fails with SSH errors.' This clearly indicates the intended scenario. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the specific use case distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_test without requiring further detail. A stronger exclusion clause would elevate this to 5.

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