ssh_health_check

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

The description explicitly states it is read-only, only reads metrics, and changes nothing on the remote host. With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden and meets it well.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information. No wasted words.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the behavior, safety, parameter details, and result format (parsed JSON with fields). It could mention error handling or SSH prerequisites, but is largely complete for its complexity.

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 schema already describes both parameters (server, detailed). The description adds value by stating the default for detailed (false) and specifying what additional metrics it includes (load average, network). This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 it runs a read-only health check via SSH, returning parsed JSON with status, CPU, memory, disk, and uptime. This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_execute (which runs arbitrary commands) and ssh_service_status (service-specific).

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 provides parameter guidance (detailed flag) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like ssh_execute or ssh_process_manager. It implies usage for health checks but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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