get_system_health

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

Discloses data sources (/proc, df, uptime, docker ps) and scope (local host), providing important behavioral context beyond the lack of annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence provides essential information about metrics, implementation, and scope.

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 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how it works, and its intended scope. No gaps.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 applies; description adds no parameter information because none are needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reports system health metrics (disk, memory, load, uptime, container count) with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on specific subsystems.

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?

Explicitly states it is designed for the local host the MCP server runs on, indicating scope. However, does not explicitly mention when to use vs. alternatives like get_container_status or get_backup_status.

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