get_host_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source ('SSH config') and the returned fields, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the alias is not found), potential side effects, or any prerequisites. It adds some useful context but leaves gaps.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and returns adequately. It lacks mention of error handling or related tools, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete overall.

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 only defines 'hostname' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a 'Host alias from SSH config,' which gives crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema. It also lists the return fields, further clarifying the parameter's role.

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 action ('Get config details') and the resource (a host alias), and lists the specific fields returned (hostname, port, user, key). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ssh_hosts, execute_ssh_command, and test_ssh_connection, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage context: 'for a host alias' suggests you use this when you need connection details for a known SSH alias. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like list_ssh_hosts or test_ssh_connection. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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