Host health snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the full set of collected metrics, which tells the agent what it will receive in one shot. It does not warn that a broad aggregate probe may be slower or heavier than a targeted sibling call, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The metric enumeration is front-loaded and every listed item carries information; the second sentence gives the motivating question. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back — it does so by naming every metric group returned. Combined with full schema coverage on the sole parameter and annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to decide and call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter 'detail' is documented in the schema as adding PIDs and disk free bytes. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work here.

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 — a single-call host health snapshot — and enumerates exactly what it collects: load, memory, disks, failed units, pending updates, reboot flag, max temperature, top processes. The 'One call' framing distinguishes it from the granular siblings (fs_usage, svc_failed, proc_list) that cover single domains.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: 'Use it to answer "is the server healthy?"'. That is a concrete trigger condition. It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing to granular siblings when only one subsystem is of interest, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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