Get SSH Host Fingerprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds critical behavioral specifics: it does not contact the host, does not change trust, and does not expose raw known_hosts. It also clarifies the return shape (known and nullable fingerprint), which goes beyond annotation coverage and adds real value.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Reads only the stored host fingerprint') and then adds necessary clarifications without unnecessary words. It is concise and efficient.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, yet it already mentions the nullable fingerprint. It covers the tool's scope, side-effect-free nature, and prerequisites (saved connection, workspace), making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a saved connection' and 'selected workspace', indirectly referencing connectionId and workspaceId, but does not explicitly explain their roles, requiredness, or formats. It provides some context but is not fully adequate given the zero schema coverage.

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 reads only the stored host fingerprint for a saved connection, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'only' and explicitly noting it does not contact the host, which differentiates it from test_connection and other SSH tools.

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 clear context on when to use this tool by highlighting that it avoids contacting the host, changing trust, or exposing raw known_hosts. This implicitly guides the agent to use it when a side-effect-free fingerprint lookup is needed, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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