ssh_git_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states that it verifies SSH key registration and working auth, which implies a read-only diagnostic action. However, it doesn't disclose expected outcomes, error behaviors, or any side effects (like network calls) beyond the implied test. Adequate but not rich; a 3 reflects that it conveys the core purpose without going into behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, both highly informative and front-loaded. The first sentence defines the tool's function, the second gives a concrete usage scenario. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema info, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: what it tests and when to use it. It doesn't mention that it only performs the SSH handshake (not full Git operations) or that the agent must have a key loaded—but those are covered by sibling tools (e.g., ssh_agent_ensure) and are reasonable to omit. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly in the described context.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters (host and user), each with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description does not add extra meaning to these parameters, so it relies on the schema. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no significant parameter-related value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('Git-over-SSH authentication'), and names a clear scope (hosting providers like GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ssh_test (generic connectivity) or ssh_known_hosts_fix (host key issues), so an agent can quickly tell what this tool is for.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use this when git clone/pull/push fails with SSH errors.' This provides a clear, actionable context for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the trigger is specific enough to guide selection among the many ssh siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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