cli_help

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 discloses that the tool returns installation, usage, and troubleshooting instructions for the standalone CLI, which is useful context, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or operational constraints. For a simple help tool this is minimally adequate.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose and return scope are front-loaded, and the outside-MCP context is stated clearly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, complete schema coverage for its single optional parameter, and the absence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns and its standalone-CLI scope. A minor gap is the lack of explicit confirmation that the operation is read-only and side-effect-free.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the optional 'topic' parameter with accepted values and the default behavior when omitted. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Get help') and resource ('remote-ssh-cli command-line tool') and clarifies the intended context: managing SSH hosts outside the MCP protocol. It distinguishes itself from the host_* and ssh_* siblings by emphasizing the standalone CLI, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 when to use the tool by mentioning help for the standalone CLI outside MCP, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the MCP-based sibling tools or any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than clearly guided.

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