ssh_describe_host

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits like safety (read-only vs mutation), authentication needs, or error handling. As no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden; it mentions the return format but omits critical context about side effects or constraints.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is efficient but could include more context without becoming verbose, such as parameter explanation or usage hints.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the role of the alias parameter or what happens when omitted, which an agent might need for proper 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?

The single parameter 'alias' is not explained in the description; its purpose (identifying the host) must be inferred. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning beyond the parameter name and default value.

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 'Return host definition in JSON.' clearly states the verb (return), resource (host definition), and output format (JSON). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_list_hosts which lists hosts, and ssh_run which executes commands.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh_list_hosts. It implies usage for retrieving a specific host's details but does not specify prerequisites or context preferences.

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