ssh_clear_known_hosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and target but omits critical details such as whether the removal is irreversible, whether it deletes only exact matches, and how missing host entries are handled. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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 one concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target. Every word 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?

While the schema covers the parameter, the description lacks details about edge cases and return behavior. With no output schema, it could mention success indications or the irreversible nature of the deletion. The tool is simple, but some gaps remain in fully understanding expected behavior.

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 fully describes the single 'host' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond restating that it removes entries for that host. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100%.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: removing stale or changed host entries from the local known_hosts file. It specifies the exact resource and action, distinguishing it from siblings focused on connection, execution, and file transfer.

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 host keys are stale or changed, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage, but it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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