Get SSH Password

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic operation, such as whether the password may be expired, whether SSH must be enabled first, or what happens if the password is unavailable. It does not contradict annotations, but it fails to provide any additional transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and front-loads the core action. No unnecessary words or filler, so it earns a high score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), and annotations cover safety. However, since there is no output schema, the description could clarify what the tool returns (e.g., the password string) or any prerequisites (e.g., SSH must be enabled). It only says 'Get the current SSH/SFTP password', which implies the return value but leaves potential error cases unspecified. For a tool this straightforward, this is a minor gap, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 fully describes the single parameter env_id as 'The environment ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, such as format or how to obtain it. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat the schema but also does not enrich 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SSH/SFTP password for an environment'), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from related tools like ssh_generate-password by specifying 'current', but it does not explicitly differentiate from other sibling tools such as ssh_password-access or ssh_status. Overall, the purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that to generate a new password one should use kinsta_environments_ssh_generate-password, or that to check SSH status one should use kinsta_environments_ssh_status. No exclusions or conditional usage are stated, leaving the agent without routing information.

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