ssh_facts_refresh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says facts are re-read; it does not explain whether this mutates local cached state, requires an active connection, how long it might take, what the return value looks like, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action and the fact categories with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. However, it omits behavioral details like return format, side effects, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent that needs to invoke it safely and interpret results.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not directly document the 'server' parameter or its expected format. The description only indirectly links the parameter to the target server, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema's name and type.

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 ('Перечитать' / refresh) and a concrete resource: facts about a given server, enumerating OS, kernel, disk, installed software, and ports. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_status, ssh_run, or ssh_file_read.

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 the tool is used when you need current server facts refreshed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an established connection or cached facts.

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