get_ssh_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing beyond the operation name. It does not disclose which SSH config is read (server sshd config vs. a host's), whether it is read-only, or what the response looks like. Only the weak signal of the verb "Get" suggests it is a safe read.

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?

Three words is maximally concise and front-loaded, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It is not padded, but it also does not earn its place beyond the name.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey what config is returned and in what form. It says nothing about the SSH configuration's scope, source, or structure, leaving an agent unable to predict the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4 even though the description adds no parameter meaning. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the input side.

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?

"Get SSH config" is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name get_ssh_config, so it conveys no purpose beyond what the identifier already tells an agent. While it does imply a read of the SSH configuration, it adds no scope or distinguishing detail.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the obvious sibling update_ssh_config that would tell an agent which of the two config tools to pick. The agent must infer everything from the surrounding tool list.

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