System Overview

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by noting it gathers everything in one SSH round trip and clarifying that memory and disk are returned as raw 'free -h' / 'df -h' tables, which helps set expectations about output verbosity.

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 concise and well-organized: a purpose sentence, a usage recommendation, an Args section, and a Returns note. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy or padding, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only overview tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, the exact sections, and the caveat about raw tables. Combined with the schema and annotations, an agent has everything it needs to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (server from inventory, response_format enum with default). The Args section in the description largely duplicates the schema, adding no new meaning beyond what the structured data already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get a one-shot health overview of an Ubuntu server') and enumerates the exact metrics collected (hostname, OS release, kernel, uptime, load, memory, disk, reboot required, failed services). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ubuntu_list_services or ubuntu_check_updates, which focus on narrower concerns.

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?

It explicitly recommends this as 'the best first call when asked "how is server X doing?"' and explains the benefit (single SSH round trip). While it doesn't list when not to use it or name alternative tools, the stated context is clear enough for an agent to choose it for health checks.

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