ssh_system_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully declares '无损' (non-destructive), signaling a read-only operation, but omits permission requirements, execution time, failure modes, and return format details. This is better than a plain mutation description but still incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('一键无损采集') before listing the collected resources, though the dense enumeration is less structured than a multi-sentence breakdown.

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 simple read-only tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the collected fields, which effectively describe the return content. Minor gaps remain around usage context and exact output format, but no critical information for invocation is missing.

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 schema fully documents the sole connectionId parameter (100% coverage), including its default behavior. The description adds no additional syntax or meaning for connectionId beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb '采集' (collect) and resource '远程 Linux 系统的...摘要' (remote Linux system summary), explicitly enumerating the collected data: distro, kernel, architecture, CPU load, memory/disk, and listening ports. This clearly distinguishes it from generic execution siblings like ssh_exec or ssh_ping.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. It does not state when to prefer this over ssh_exec or other SSH tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an active connection, apart from what the schema implies via connectionId.

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