Get Cube SSH Info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that the returned user has passwordless sudo, that `sudo su` reaches root, that the username depends on Cube age rather than image id, and that host keys may be pinned. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before acting on the result.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents before the caveat about usernames. Every sentence carries information; the sudo/root detail is slightly beyond strict need but is genuinely useful for the next step after connecting.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value — and it does, listing host, port, user, and host keys. Combined with the sudo context and the optional spaceId fallback noted in the schema, an agent has everything required to call and use this tool.

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 both cubeId and spaceId are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable given the coverage but caps the score at the baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement: it returns everything needed to SSH into a Cube, enumerating host, port, login user, and pinned host keys. That is immediately distinguishable from the sibling get_cube, which returns general Cube metadata.

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?

Gives an explicit directive — 'Call this rather than guessing a username' — and explains why derivation fails, since the user is `ubuntu`/`debian` on image-based Cubes but `root` on older ones. It never names a sibling tool as an alternative, so the routing guidance is behavioral rather than tool-to-tool.

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