estado_sistema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the breadth of collection (systemd + Docker + process sampling), which hints at a potentially slow aggregation call, but it never says so outright, nor does it mention auth or failure behavior for unreachable hosts.

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 that front-loads the purpose ('Resumen de salud') and then lists payload contents; nothing is redundant. The comma-spliced list is slightly harder to scan than a structured breakdown but wastes no words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the read-only profile. What remains missing is the only input parameter's semantics and any note about cost/latency of a multi-subsystem probe — a real gap for a one-required-param tool with 0% schema coverage.

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% and the single required parameter 'servidor' is documented nowhere — the schema only carries the title 'Servidor'. The description never mentions the parameter, so an agent gets no help on expected format (hostname vs. IP vs. alias from listar_servidores) for the one input it must supply.

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 resource (health summary) and enumerates exactly what is gathered: uptime/load, memory, disk, top processes, failed systemd services and Docker containers. That inventory distinguishes it well from siblings like ver_logs or leer_archivo, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 enumerated data categories imply the use case (a diagnostic snapshot of a machine), but there is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, no exclusion of when to prefer ver_logs or ejecutar_comando, and no prerequisites such as needing a reachable server.

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