Get SSH Access

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

The description says `each call issues a new password`, which contradicts the annotation `idempotentHint: true`; repeated identical calls would produce new credentials rather than no additional effect. Although the description otherwise adds useful security and expiry context, this direct conflict is serious enough to score 1.

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 purpose and safety instructions are front-loaded, which is good. However, the generic operation_id/write-retry paragraph is lengthy and confusing for a tool whose schema has no `operation_id` field, so not every sentence clearly earns its place.

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 description covers the main return values and key safety constraints, and an output schema exists so return formatting need not be explained. Still, it omits input parameter semantics and introduces an `operation_id` requirement that is not represented in the schema, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain the two input parameters. It only implies that a `pod` is involved and never mentions the optional `workspace` parameter, leaving both parameters under-specified.

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 and resource: issuing a one-time SSH login for a pod, and names the returned artifacts (`command`, `password`, `expires_at`). This is distinguishable from generic pod lifecycle siblings and tells an agent exactly what the tool produces.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance (`only when the user asks to connect`), clear prohibitions (`never run the command yourself or put the password in files, commits or other tools`), and a recovery path (`check operation_status` after a timeout). This leaves little ambiguity about invocation context.

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