trust_ssh_host

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds. It discloses both the mutating behavior ('record it in known_hosts') and the safety gate ('only when the user confirms that exact fingerprint'). It does not hide the side effect behind the tool's name.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the precise use-case trigger. Every phrase earns its place: what it shows, what it records, when recording happens, and when to use the tool.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough to select and invoke correctly. It names the trigger, the side effect, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing essential is missing for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds some framing about fingerprint confirmation, but the confirmFingerprint parameter's behavior is already well documented in the schema. The description does not materially extend what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Show the SSH host key fingerprint for a tunnelled connection', then states the recording action into known_hosts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like test_connection and execute_query by focusing on SSH host trust. The 'Unknown SSH host key' mention further pins down the exact job.

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 explicitly gives a trigger condition: 'Use this when a tunnel fails with "Unknown SSH host key".' It also communicates the consent condition for the side effect. It does not name when-not-to-use cases or alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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