Scan system inventory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the operation is read-only and least-privilege (R2/R3), which tells the agent nothing destructive happens. However, it omits execution cost/duration, required permissions or elevation, host scope (local vs remote), and why R2/R3 matters — and 'read-only' is stated twice without added detail.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the safety qualifier. Slight redundancy in restating 'read-only' and unexplained jargon '(R2/R3)' cost it a point.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the whole load. It does enumerate what the inventory returns, but leaves the response structure, scope of the scan, runtime, and privilege model (R2/R3 is never explained) unspecified — adequate but with clear gaps for a scan tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument syntax to clarify. The enumerated inventory contents describe output rather than inputs, so no further parameter credit is available or needed.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Collect a read-only kernel inventory') and enumerates the collected artifacts (version, config, loaded modules, distro), which is far more specific than the sibling tools like query_cve or find_patches. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. 'Read-only, least privilege' describes a safety property, not usage context, so the agent must infer that this scan should precede cve_applicability or find_patches on its own.

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