Get SSH Key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond the fact that it retrieves details; it doesn't disclose return format, pagination (not applicable), error behavior, or rate limits. Given the strong annotations, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key facts, and contains zero redundant or filler text. It is optimally concise for the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID operation with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks a note about output format or links to sibling tools, but these are not critical for basic 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 100% (both 'id' and 'response_format' have descriptions). The description's 'by ID' aligns with the required id parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Get details') on a specific resource ('specific SSH key') identified by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ssh_keys (which lists all keys) and create/delete operations.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies this tool is used when a single SSH key is needed, and the sibling list tool implies the alternative for enumerating all keys. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no explicit alternative naming.

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