pikvm_system_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose read-only semantics and the SSH transport, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about authentication/credential requirements for the SSH connection, whether the call is slow or rate-limited, or how failures surface — meaningful gaps for an SSH-based probe.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the operation type and transport, then enumerates payload. The long list of metrics is dense but each item is informative; no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required, and read-only behavior is stated. However, the two undocumented parameters — especially how "server" resolves and what "max_chars" truncation does — leave real gaps an agent must guess at before calling.

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 0% for both parameters, and the description does not compensate at all. "server" is never explained (target host? alias from pikvm_servers?), and "max_chars" clearly implies output truncation behavior that goes entirely undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb (health check) and resource (PiKVM system) and enumerates the exact data collected — OS, kvmd version, uptime, disk, memory, temperature, throttling, USB gadget, network, service state. An agent knows precisely what this returns, though it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like pikvm_status or pikvm_info.

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?

"Health check" implies a diagnostic context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over pikvm_status, pikvm_info, or pikvm_endpoints, all of which plausibly return overlapping state. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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