nemesis_server_agent

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

The description adds concrete side effects beyond the annotations: it installs a systemd unit, enrolls the host, auto-discovers apps, and mints a key. It also notes the API key requirement and root execution. These details enrich the annotations' readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then the exact command flow, then the required API key. Every sentence adds value and there is no wasted wording. The structure is clear and guides the agent through what happens.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains the outcome (install command), the runtime steps (systemd, enrollment, auto-discovery), and the follow-up action (apps appear in nemesis_list_apps). It gives a complete mental model of use and results.

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 covers 100% of the single optional label parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description itself does not mention the label parameter, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 protects an entire server by enrolling it with the Nemesis host agent, mints an enrollment key, and returns a one-line install command. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on whole-server host-agent enrollment and auto-discovery of apps, rather than individual app or LLM protection.

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?

It gives clear usage context: run on the server as root, requires NEMESIS_API_KEY, and the resulting apps show up in nemesis_list_apps for approval. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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