ssh_run_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden — and it does disclose the critical trait that nothing is executed (no side effects), plus that the matched rule is returned. It omits auth/permission prerequisites and whether the check is bound to the active session/credentials, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler. The most important fact (no execution) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the additional return/usage notes follow in priority order.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key dry-run semantics plus when to call it. Missing only permission/session prerequisites, which would matter for a policy-evaluation tool.

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 0% for two required params, so the description must compensate — but 'host' and 'command' are only mentioned obliquely ('a command on a host') with no format, naming convention, or syntax guidance. An agent has to guess how hosts are addressed and whether multi-command strings are allowed.

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?

States a specific verb (check/would be allowed) and resource (a command on a host), and the all-caps 'WITHOUT running it' immediately separates it from what a naive reader would assume ssh_run does. An agent can distinguish this dry-run/authorization check from ssh_run without opening either schema.

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?

Gives two concrete triggering situations: before a risky/unfamiliar command, or to diagnose a prior refusal. It does not explicitly name ssh_run as the alternative being gated, so routing is implied by the description rather than stated as a rule.

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