tools_ssh_audit

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as potential downtime, authentication requirements, or side effects. The tool is likely non-destructive but this is not explicitly stated.

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 with one line for the tool purpose and a list of parameters. It avoids unnecessary text, though the parameter list could be more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 has 6 parameters and an output schema exists, the description should provide more context such as typical usage, prerequisites (e.g., SSH access), or examples. It lacks completeness for an agent to determine correct invocation.

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 description adds brief context to each parameter (e.g., target as hostname/IP, port default 22, scan_type as 'ssh1, ssh2'). With 0% schema description coverage, this provides minimal but essential semantics; however, it lacks details like allowed scan_type values beyond the example.

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 executes ssh-audit to analyze SSH server security configuration. It uses a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('ssh-audit'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like tools_nmap or tools_sslscan by focusing on SSH audit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. It simply lists parameters without contextual direction.

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