ssh_known_hosts_fix

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

Discloses the main behavioral trait: it removes a stale key and re-scans to add the current key. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden; it adequately describes the side effect on known_hosts without extra details on permissions or errors.

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, no wasted words. First sentence explains the action, second provides usage context. Highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given two simple parameters, no output schema, and clear description, the tool is sufficiently described. It covers purpose, trigger, and behavior. Minor omission: could mention that it modifies the known_hosts file, but it's implied by 'remove from known_hosts'.

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%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not enhance understanding of the host or port parameters beyond what the schema provides, leading to a baseline score of 3.

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 action: remove a stale host key and re-scan the host. It specifies the resource (known_hosts) and the verb (fix). It distinguishes from sibling tools by targeting a specific SSH issue, 'Host key verification failed'.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: when 'Host key verification failed' errors occur, typically after server reprovisioning. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for selection among siblings.

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