ssh_key_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that accept and remove mutate local state and are blocked on readonly servers, and warns that autoAccept should be used with caution. This fully informs the agent of behavioral traits.

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 with no waste. First sentence states the general purpose, second explains all actions and constraints. Information is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers all actions, constraints, and warnings. A minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state that the 'list' action lists all known hosts entries (implied by server not being required), but overall it's sufficient.

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 each parameter has a basic description. The tool description adds significant meaning by explaining the purpose of each action value, the mutation safety, and the server requirement per action. It enriches the semantics beyond the schema's enum and boolean descriptions.

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 it manages SSH host key fingerprints in the local known_hosts file, specifying the verb 'Manages' and resource 'SSH host key fingerprints'. It distinguishes five actions (verify, accept, remove, list, check) with explicit behavior, making it distinct from sibling SSH tools.

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 clear context for each action, noting that verify, check, and list are read-only, while accept and remove are mutation actions blocked on readonly servers. It also specifies that server is required except for list, and warns about autoAccept. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use alternatives.

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