Recolector para servidores Linux

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it delivers two key facts: the generated script is read-only ('solo lectura') and the tool does not execute it remotely (it must be run manually). It does not say whether the script needs elevated privileges, what format the collected file takes, or what the tool returns on write success.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the routing condition and the downstream handoff. No filler, though the parenthetical channel list is slightly dense.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers purpose, mode (read-only, manual execution), and the workflow link to scan_host. It stops short of describing what the generated script emits or how to name the resulting collected_file, which an agent assembling a multi-step flow would want.

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 100% and output_path is documented there with its default, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the parameter work.

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: it writes a read-only collection script for Linux server packages and configuration. It also explicitly disambiguates from the sibling scan_host (it does not run the collection itself; scan_host consumes the output), so an agent can pick between the two without reading schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('cuando no hay SSH directo desde aquí'), names concrete execution channels (MobaXterm, consola, Ansible), and states the follow-up step ('Luego scan_host con collected_file'). That is when, how, and what next, all in one sentence pair.

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