webmin-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output format (PID, user, etc.) but does not mention critical behaviors such as whether this requires administrative permissions, if it's safe to run frequently, potential performance impacts, or error conditions. For a system monitoring tool, this is a significant gap in 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds useful details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and output format without redundancy, making it efficient 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (system monitoring), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and output format but lacks behavioral details and usage context. It is adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps that could hinder effective tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'server' parameter with its description. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('List all running processes') and resource ('on the system'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_services or list_users by focusing on system processes. It also specifies what information is shown (PID, user, CPU usage, memory, command), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_services or get_system_info, which might overlap in monitoring system resources. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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