ssh_audit_baseline

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Reads only'. It adds valuable behavioral context: the sudo behavior (without sudo, sshd section reads from config file rather than sshd itself), and the compact/include parameters' effect on output size. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the non-sudo fallback behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then the key differentiator (one round trip), then the sudo caveat, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 output schema exists (which likely describes the report structure), the description covers the essential context: what sections are included, severity markers, the sudo behavior, and when to use it. The tool is a read-only audit with clear parameters, and the description is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 documents all parameters. The description adds context about the 'include' parameter's default behavior ('Default: all') and the sudo-related parameter's effect, but these are also in the schema. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: reporting machine setup (sshd, firewall, pending updates, failed services, docker, listening ports, disk) with severity markers. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'one round trip instead of a dozen commands' and explicitly contrasts with ssh_snapshot for load/health.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use it on a machine you have not audited yet; for load and health at this moment, use ssh_snapshot.' This provides clear usage context and names the alternative tool, making the decision unambiguous.

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