Explain SSH Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this tool is 'explain-only,' which aligns with annotations. It does not contradict any annotation, but it could elaborate on what 'explain' entails (e.g., returns a policy decision). Still, it provides sufficient behavioral transparency 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the primary usage context. Every sentence serves a purpose—first tells when to use, second clarifies what it does not do. No wasted words.

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 has an output schema (handling return values), the description is adequately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and behavioral boundary. A slight gap: it doesn't mention that the tool returns a policy explanation, but the output schema presumably provides that.

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%, so all parameters are already described in the input schema. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, but given the high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not hinder understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'explain whether a requested SSH inspection or mutation would be allowed.' It uses specific verbs ('explain') and resources ('SSH policy'), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it is 'explain-only' and does not execute commands or open tunnels.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use: 'Use this when ChatGPT or Claude needs to explain whether a requested SSH inspection or mutation would be allowed.' It also explicitly states what the tool does not do ('does not execute commands or open tunnels'), helping the agent avoid misuse.

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