tools_ssh_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention network activity, safety profile, permissions, return values, or any side effects. The agent is left completely in the dark about what executing ssh-audit entails.

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 under-specified rather than concise. While it is short, it lacks any useful structure or information that would help an agent understand the tool. It is simply a command invocation without explanation of inputs or outputs.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not cover the tool's purpose, usage, parameter semantics, or expected results. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters but zero description coverage. The description does not explain what 'target', 'scan_type', 'policy_file', 'additional_args', 'port', or 'timeout' mean. With 0% schema coverage and no parameter explanation in the description, the agent has no way to correctly populate these fields.

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 'Execute ssh-audit' is nearly a tautology of the tool name (tools_ssh_audit). It does not explain what ssh-audit does (e.g., audits SSH server configuration, algorithms, ciphers) or distinguish it from sibling tools like tools_sslscan or tools_nmap. The verb 'Execute' is generic and adds no purpose clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what scenarios it is appropriate for, or how it compares to alternatives. The description is a single command phrase with no context, exclusions, or references to other tools.

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