ssh_known_hosts_fix

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-step operation (remove + re-scan) and the typical trigger. However, it lacks details on failure modes (e.g., host unreachable) or prerequisites (e.g., SSH access for scanning), which are relevant for an agent executing this tool.

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, front-loaded with action and use case. No filler, every word contributes to understanding.

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 purpose and trigger but does not mention output or return values. For a state-modifying tool, the agent would benefit from knowing what to expect after success (e.g., success message or new host key fingerprint).

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 descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no clarification on host format or port range use).

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 tool's actions (remove stale key and re-scan) and links to a specific error scenario ('Host key verification failed'). It distinguishes from all sibling tools, which focus on other SSH operations like file transfer or execution, not known_hosts management.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'when you see Host key verification failed errors, typically after server reprovisioning.' It does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an AI agent to decide correctly.

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