ssh_alert_setup

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

The description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits. As a configuration tool, it likely modifies server settings, which should be mentioned (e.g., requires permissions or has side effects). No annotations exist to compensate.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the purpose. Every word earns its place, though it is minimal.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple actions) and sibling tools, the description is too brief. It omits explanation of actions, threshold interactions, and return values. No output schema exists, so more context is needed.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the tool's purpose. No parameter-specific details are added.

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 'Configure health monitoring alerts and thresholds' clearly identifies the verb 'Configure' and the resource 'health monitoring alerts and thresholds'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like ssh_health_check (run a check) or ssh_monitor (monitor continuously), though it could be more explicit about the configuration aspect.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not differentiate from ssh_health_check or ssh_monitor, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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