Prepare New Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context: it generates a plan based on OS detection, not actually executing actions. This clarifies that the tool does not modify state, consistent with annotations. No contradictions. The description adds useful behavioral specifics beyond annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Generates a multi-OS provisioning plan') and then details specific parts. No redundant words; every part adds value. Ideal length for a tool with no parameters.

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 no output schema and zero parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose and supported OS. However, it does not specify the format of the generated plan (e.g., text summary, step list) or how the plan is returned. This minor gap is acceptable for a simple planning tool, but slightly incomplete for an agent that might need to interpret the output.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info. It correctly implies the tool operates based on detected OS with no required inputs.

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's function: generating a multi-OS provisioning plan. It specifies the actions (update system packages, install core utilities) and supported OS distributions (Ubuntu, Debian, RHEL, CentOS, Alpine). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'install_runtimes' or 'configure_firewall' which focus on specific tasks rather than generating a comprehensive plan.

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 implies usage for initial server setup, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., 'inspect_server' for inspection, 'confirm_execution' for execution). However, the context of 'prepare_new_server' and siblings suggests it's intended for planning before execution. The lack of explicit exclusions is balanced by the tool's self-explanatory purpose.

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