get_distroname_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'via SSH' but doesn't disclose that the tool is read-only, what happens on connection failure, authentication methods (password or key), or that it doesn't modify the remote system. The behavior is implied but not explicitly described.

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 sentence, which is concise but incomplete. It front-loads the core action, but missing essential details such as dependencies and behavior. It earns its place but could be more informative without adding excessive length.

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 complexity of SSH connectivity (7 parameters, authentication, network) and absence of annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover prerequisites (e.g., SSH access, key management), error scenarios, or expected output, though an output schema exists (not shown here) which may partially mitigate the need to describe return values. Overall, it leaves significant gaps.

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 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter beyond the tool's purpose. It fails to clarify required fields (host, user) or optional fields (port, password, key_path, timeout, accept_new_hostkey), leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 'Collects distr details from os-release from a remote Linux host via SSH', specifying the action (collect), resource (distr details from os-release), and method (via SSH). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_crontab_tasks or get_uptime by focusing on distribution details.

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. It doesn't explain prerequisites like SSH credentials being configured or that it should be used to retrieve OS version. The context of siblings implies this is the tool for distribution info, but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is given.

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