Server health check

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

The description states 'Read-only snapshot', indicating no side effects, and lists the data returned. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose authentication requirements, potential performance impact, or error conditions, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and contents. It is front-loaded with 'Read-only snapshot' and avoids unnecessary words, though a slightly more structured presentation (e.g., list) could improve scannability.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description must explain return values. It lists key data points (uptime, load, memory, disk, top processes), which is fairly complete for a health check. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise sufficient for the tool's 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'host' with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a read-only snapshot of server health including uptime, load average, memory, disk usage, and top processes. It is specific about the resource (server health) and the action (snapshot), and the listed content distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_hosts or read_logs.

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 usage for monitoring server health but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like security_audit or ssl_status. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites (e.g., SSH access) is provided.

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