get-status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving data from a 'remote server' via SSH (implied by the connectionName parameter), but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds minimal context beyond what's obvious from the tool name.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating the 'what' from the 'components', but it avoids redundancy and every element (verb, resource, scope, components) earns its place without waste.

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 operation with 2 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., response format, error handling). The listed components help, but don't fully compensate for missing structured data about the operation's behavior.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'comprehensive system status' includes beyond the listed components, or how refresh interacts with caching). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'comprehensive system status information', specifying exactly what data is retrieved (OS, CPU, memory, disk, processes, services). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'check-port' or 'list-servers' by focusing on detailed system metrics rather than connectivity or file operations.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring an established SSH connection, nor does it compare to siblings like 'test-connection' for basic connectivity checks or 'execute-command' for custom queries. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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