get_instance_ssh_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool resolves and returns a command (not executing it), and it specifies runtime requirements. This is sufficient for a low-risk read-only tool, though it doesn't explain error handling if preconditions are unmet.

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 concise sentences plus a relevant example. It front-loads the main action and output, then adds preconditions. No superfluous text, and the example reinforces usage without being verbose.

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 simple one-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema (not shown here), the description sufficiently covers the purpose, preconditions, and output format. It could mention what happens on failure, but for a lookup tool this is a minor gap. The context from sibling tools helps round out the picture.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description compensates by showing an example (`get_instance_ssh_info(instance_id=12345)`) and referencing instance attributes (`actual_status`, `runtype`) that give context to the `instance_id` parameter. This makes the parameter's meaning clear even though the schema does not describe it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and identifies the resource ('instance's direct SSH endpoint'), clearly stating the output (a ready-to-run ssh command). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like ssh_exec by clarifying that it returns a command rather than executing one.

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 explicit preconditions for use ('Requires actual_status == "running" and a ssh_direct or jupyter_direct runtype'), which helps the agent know when it is applicable. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the preconditions and output make the usage context clear.

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