sysknife_get_password_aging

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'read-only' repeated twice in the description adds nothing. The one genuinely additive detail is the underlying 'chage -l' invocation, which tells the agent the read is local and what fields to expect; no mention of permission requirements or error behavior when the user does not exist.

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?

Single short line, front-loaded with the action name and followed by the effect, the backing command, and the parameter. The duplicated 'read-only' tag is mild waste but the whole definition is under 25 words with zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, naming 'chage -l' carries most of the return-value burden for the agent. However, the definition leaves an unexplained gap between the declared required 'user' parameter and the empty input schema, and says nothing about failure modes for unknown accounts.

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 is an empty object with additionalProperties=true, so the description is the only place the required 'user' argument is documented — genuinely additive beyond structured data. It is slightly weakened by the 'user*' shorthand and by not stating the expected format (username vs UID) or reconciling with the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('show a user's password-aging fields') and names the exact underlying command (chage -l), which pins down the data returned. No sibling tool covers password aging, so the scope is unambiguously distinct.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: inspect password expiry for a given account. There is no statement of when to prefer this over sibling read tools (e.g. list_users, get_sudo_grants) and no prerequisites such as needing root or a target account to exist.

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