sys_snapshot

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 implies a read-only metrics collection, but says nothing about how the 'host' is reached (SSH? agent? credentials?), whether it requires the host to be reachable, or what happens on failure — significant omissions for a remote-host tool.

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?

One dense sentence with zero filler; the enumerated metrics are front-loaded and the scope ('of a Linux host', 'in one call') is clear. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though it could spend one more clause on the host parameter.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the enumeration of returned metric categories does double duty as a return-value summary, which is genuinely useful. However, the ambiguity about the host parameter's format and connection semantics leaves a real gap for an agent trying to invoke it 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?

The single required parameter 'host' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never clarifies its expected format (hostname, IP, user@host, SSH alias). With the only parameter undocumented in both schema and prose, the agent is left guessing at the most important input.

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 names the exact resource set (memory, root disk, load, listening TCP ports) scoped to a Linux host, which is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from siblings like service_status or http_probe. It lacks an explicit verb ('gathers'/'reads'), so the operation is implied rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as exec or service_status. The phrase 'in one call' hints at consolidation value but never names a competing tool or exclusion, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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