ssh_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It comprehensively discloses read-only nature, no sudo requirement, the specific commands run, and the behavior of interval/duration parameters (accepted but only single snapshot). The platform limitation is also noted.

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 three well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has four parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers all relevant behavior: what it does, what commands run, parameter effects, and platform limitation. It is complete for effective tool 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%, but the description adds extra value: it explains that 'type' defaults to 'overview', and that 'interval' and 'duration' are for continuous monitoring intent but only a single snapshot is gathered. This clarifies behavior beyond the schema.

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 collects a read-only snapshot of system resources on a named Linux server using specific commands. It distinguishes from siblings by being a monitoring tool, not for command execution or other tasks. The verb 'Collects' and resource 'system resources' are specific, and the scope is well-defined.

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 (for read-only monitoring) and notes platform limitation (Linux only). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with sibling tools like ssh_execute or ssh_service_status. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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