ssh_system_load

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is shown (load averages and process count), implying it is a read-only, safe operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, describe permissions required, or mention that an active SSH session is needed. The existence of an output schema likely covers return format, but the description could still be clearer about safety.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one line for the argument. Every word is necessary, and the structure front-loads the core functionality. There is no redundancy or irrelevant information, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active SSH session), potential error conditions, or how the tool integrates with the SSH workflow. A slightly more complete description would include a reference to session management.

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 one parameter (session_name) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's Args line adds meaning by stating 'session_name: SSH session to use,' which clarifies its purpose. While it's a simple parameter, this addition compensates for the schema's lack of description. More detail (e.g., default session behavior) would have earned a 5.

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 'Show system load averages (1, 5, 15 minutes) and running process count.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the output is well-defined. Among sibling tools like ssh_cpu_info, ssh_memory_usage, and ssh_system_info, this tool is uniquely identified by focusing on load averages, making its purpose distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. For example, it does not advise using this tool for quick system health checks or contrast it with more comprehensive tools like ssh_system_info. This lack of usage direction reduces its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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