ssh_key_manage

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors like destructive actions (remove, accept) and cautions (autoAccept). The vague 'manage' does not indicate read vs write operations, permissions, or side effects, which is insufficient for safe tool selection.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It is front-loaded with 'Manage SSH host keys' but omits important details, making it efficient yet incomplete.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by clarifying action effects, return formats, and usage scenarios. The current text is too minimal to fully guide an agent, especially for a tool with enum-based actions and conditional parameters.

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 schema already provides meaning for all parameters. The description adds no extra context beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage without improvement.

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 'Manage SSH host keys for security verification' clearly identifies the verb (manage) and resource (SSH host keys), and the tool is distinct from SSH-related siblings like ssh_health_check or ssh_service_status. However, 'manage' is broad and could be more specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., ssh_session_start, ssh_connection_status). It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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