get_uptime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does specify it connects via SSH to a Linux host, implying network access and credentials are needed. However, it does not mention authentication handling, potential failures, or the underlying command used (e.g., 'uptime'). This is adequate but incomplete.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant information.

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 tool's complexity (remote SSH with 7 parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is too brief. It omits important context like return value expectations (though output schema exists), authentication methods, or error scenarios. More details are needed for reliable invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameter roles. It does not. While parameter names like 'host' and 'user' are self-explanatory, others like 'accept_new_hostkey' and 'key_path' are not described, and no hints are provided about their purpose or defaults.

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 action ('collects uptime'), resource ('from a remote Linux host'), and method ('via SSH'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other system information like disk usage or crontab tasks.

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 fetching system uptime remotely, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or exclusion criteria. The context (sibling tools) suggests it's part of a suite, but differentiation is not stated.

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