ssh_health_check

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

No annotations present, so description must stand alone. Explicitly states it is read-only and changes nothing on the remote host. Describes output structure (overall status, CPU, memory, disk, uptime) and parameter effect. Does not disclose authentication or error handling, but sufficient for basic transparency.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and output, then parameter details. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 2 simple parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a clear picture of what it does and what it returns. Lacks error conditions or SSH failure behavior, but overall sufficiently complete for agent selection.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning: 'named server' clarifies the server parameter, and 'set detailed to true to additionally include load average and network metrics; it defaults to false' explains the boolean's effect beyond schema's minimal description.

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?

Clearly states the tool runs a comprehensive read-only health check on a named server via SSH, returning parsed JSON with specific metrics. Distinguishes from siblings like ssh_execute and ssh_monitor as it is read-only and focused on health metrics.

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?

Implies usage for health checks but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like ssh_monitor or ssh_execute. No when-not or exclusion conditions provided.

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