Inspect SSH Host

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. Description adds value by explaining the credential broker mechanism and that no secrets are accepted, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states when and what, second clarifies input constraints. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action and context.

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 full schema coverage, existing output schema, and annotations, the description covers necessary context (purpose, mechanism, input constraints) without gaps. The credential broker note adds important environment-specific detail.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description restates 'host alias and selected checks' without adding new semantics or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs read-only host inspection using a credential broker, with user providing host alias and selected checks. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a composite inspection (os, uptime, disk, memory) rather than a single-check tool like os_detect or disk_usage.

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?

Description says to use when read-only host inspection is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention sibling tools as alternatives. Guidance is implied but lacks exclusionary context.

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