ssh_get_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'Get details', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects or disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements or potential errors.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence. It is concise and to the point, though it could potentially include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context for basic use. However, it does not explain what constitutes 'details' or specify any constraints on the serverId parameter, leaving minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description ('Server ID to get details for'). No extra context like format or constraints is provided.

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 it retrieves details of a specific server by ID, using a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific configured server by ID'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_list_servers which list all servers, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 implies usage when needing details of a single server, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ssh_list_servers for listing, or ssh_exec for actions). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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