report

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

The description reveals that the tool performs snapshot comparison and can preview without saving (via no_save param). However, it does not explain side effects like whether snapshots are automatically saved by default, what snapshots are referenced, or required permissions. With no annotations, more detail is needed.

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, well-formed sentence of 14 words with no unnecessary content. Front-loads the verb and resource, and enumerates key outputs efficiently.

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 no output schema, the description adequately outlines the report contents (comparison, warnings, changes, actions). All parameters are optional and schema is self-documenting. Could mention default behavior (e.g., saving snapshot unless no_save) to enhance completeness.

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 100% description coverage (keep, no_save, server are all described). The tool description adds context about 'snapshot comparison' related to keep, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool generates a 'butler-style health report' with specific outputs: snapshot comparison, warnings, notable changes, and suggested actions. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like system_status by focusing on historical comparison.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like system_status, alerts, or network_scan. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or alternatives.

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