ssh_import_legacy

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 discloses that by default the tool only shows what will be imported (dry-run), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention the dry_run parameter explicitly, nor any side effects when dry_run is false (e.g., whether it modifies files or requires confirmation). This is a partial disclosure; the core behavior is clear but not comprehensive.

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, only two sentences, and front-loads the main action (import) and the resource. The second sentence explains a critical default behavior. There is no redundancy; every sentence earns its place. However, it is slightly sparse—it could add a hint about output format without becoming verbose.

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 a one-off import operation with only two parameters, one of which is documented. The description covers the primary purpose and the dry-run default, which is essential for safe usage. However, it omits details like what the output looks like (since no output schema is provided) and what happens when dry_run=false (e.g., writes to config). For an import tool, this is a moderate gap but not severe given the simplicity.

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 description coverage is 50%, meaning the 'path' parameter is documented in the schema but 'dry_run' is not. The description mentions the dry-run behavior indirectly ('По умолчанию только показывает'), which adds semantic value beyond the schema's default value. However, it does not elaborate on the exact format of 'path' or the meaning of 'dry_run' beyond the boolean. The description adds some context but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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's purpose: importing servers from a legacy block-based servers.env file. It uses a specific verb ('Импортировать') and resource ('старый блочный servers.env'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling SSH tools which focus on connection, file operations, and shell management.

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 primary use case (importing legacy servers) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. It mentions a dry-run default, which hints at a safe preview mode, but lacks explicit exclusions or reference to any alternative import tools. Given the sibling list, no other tool does import, so the context is clear enough, though not explicit.

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