get_kernel_version

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does useful work by naming the transport (SSH) and the exact read-only command (`uname -srvm`), which implies a non-mutating operation. It omits the authentication model (key vs. password), host-key verification behavior, timeout/failure semantics when the host is unreachable, and does not explicitly assert read-only status.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb leads, the returned fields are enumerated, and the implementation detail is parenthesised at the end. Nothing is padded and nothing needs reordering.

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?

The return values are covered by an existing output schema, so the description need not explain the payload, and it correctly identifies the data source and transport. Against a seven-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, though, it leaves authentication mode, connection failure behavior and parameter semantics entirely unaddressed.

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% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to: host, user, port, timeout, key_path, password and accept_new_hostkey are all undocumented in both places. Only an oblique hint exists — 'remote Linux host via SSH' implies host/user and some credential mechanism — with nothing on credential precedence or the security implication of accept_new_hostkey.

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 specific verb and resource set — kernel name, release, build version and architecture — and pins it to the exact `uname -srvm` invocation, so an agent knows precisely what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbours like get_distroname_version or get_libc_version, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'from a remote Linux host via SSH' signals that this targets remote machines and that SSH reachability is a precondition, which indirectly separates it from local-inspection siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to the distro/libc alternatives for adjacent questions.

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