ssh_git_check

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It says the tool 'tests authentication' and 'verifies SSH key' but does not disclose whether it modifies state, what commands it runs, or what output to expect. Adding details about non-destructive behavior or expected responses would improve transparency.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, followed by a usage hint. No unnecessary words—every sentence earns its place.

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 covers purpose and usage but omits return values and prerequisites (e.g., SSH key must be loaded). Given no output schema, mentioning what the agent should expect (success/failure indicators) would enhance completeness.

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% and both parameters have clear descriptions with defaults. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, so 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 explicitly states the tool tests Git-over-SSH authentication to hosting providers like GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket. It specifies the action 'verifies your SSH key is registered and working' and gives a clear use case. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that test general SSH connectivity or manage keys.

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 provides explicit context for when to use: 'when git clone/pull/push fails with SSH errors.' It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear and actionable for an AI agent.

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