ssh_snapshot

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: unmeasured values return null and are marked unavailable rather than zero, preventing misinterpretation. This goes beyond annotations by defining output semantics, so a 4 is justified.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, adds the critical null-behavior detail, and ends with the alternative. Every word earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (which explains return structure) and the description covers what it measures, the round-trip efficiency, and the null unavailable convention, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 sole parameter 'profile' is already fully described in the schema as 'Machine name.' (100% coverage). The description does not add any further detail about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies—the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 reports current machine health (cpu, memory, disk, containers, listening ports, services, recent errors) in one round trip, and explicitly contrasts it with ssh_audit_baseline for setup vs. running state. This makes its purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for current operational status, and when not to (for configuration use ssh_audit_baseline). This directly names the alternative and the condition, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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