ssh_alert_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: set is mutating, may need write access to /etc, is blocked on readonly servers; get and check are read-only; check errors if no config. This level of detail is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about side effects or prerequisites.

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 five sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently covers actions, side effects, and constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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, 3 actions, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: action behavior, file path, permissions, and error condition. However, it does not describe the return format for get or check actions, which could be useful for an AI agent. Still, it is largely complete and sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 describes all parameters. The description adds only minor context (e.g., 'enabled defaults to true') that is not already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics well and the description offers minimal additional value.

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 specific verb ('configures and evaluates') and resource ('CPU, memory, and disk usage alert thresholds for a remote server'). It clearly distinguishes three actions (set, get, check) and is readily differentiated from sibling tools that focus on SSH management tasks like backups, commands, and sessions.

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 explains when to use each action: set writes configuration, get reads config, check compares metrics. It notes that set is mutating and may require write access, while get and check are read-only. It also warns that check errors if no config exists. This provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude situations or compare with other tools, keeping it slightly from a perfect score.

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