ssh_plan

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

The description implies a read-only preview ('show') that checks policy, but since no annotations are provided, it should more explicitly state that no command is executed and that the tool is safe and idempotent.

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 very concise (1 sentence) but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits key details about parameters and output. It is not overly verbose, but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

With 2 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is insufficient. It should explain the preview nature, the condition of policy check, and what the output contains. The current description leaves many gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the purpose of 'alias' or 'command'. The name and context hint at their roles, but explicit semantic help is missing. Baseline would be 4 if schema covered, but here it does not.

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 the tool shows what would be executed and whether policy allows, distinguishing it from execution tools like ssh_run. However, it does not mention the input parameters (alias, command) that define what is being planned.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over siblings like ssh_run, nor does it mention prerequisites or that it should be used before execution.

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