audit_ssh_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states it 'audits' and returns results, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly guarantee no modifications are made.

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 extremely concise, containing only two sentences. It quickly communicates the purpose and return value without any filler or redundancy.

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 and lack of parameters, the description is largely complete: it explains the action, the target (SSH daemon configuration), and the output format. It lacks explicit mention of scope (local system), but this is reasonably implied.

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?

There are no parameters, so the empty input schema leaves no room for missing documentation. The description accurately reflects that the tool operates without arguments, achieving the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 the tool audits the SSH daemon configuration against security best practices, specifying the action and resource. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on other system aspects.

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 for security auditing but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. However, since no sibling tool covers SSH config audits, the context is somewhat clear.

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