what_needs_attention

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing the scope of the check (multiple subsystems) and the output behavior (verdicts sorted by severity), which goes beyond the annotations 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 extremely concise: one main sentence listing what is checked and one parenthetical exclusion with an alternative. Every word earns its place, and the structure front-loads the core purpose.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description provides all necessary context: the tool's function, its data sources, the return style (prioritized, severity-sorted verdicts), and an explicit exclusion with a fallback tool. It is fully complete for an agent to select and 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 tool has zero parameters, making parameter-specific guidance unnecessary. The schema is empty and coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter details because there are none; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Get a prioritized list of things that need attention right now' and enumerates exactly which sources it checks (host resources, Prometheus, cron, CrowdSec, SSL). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting what it does not cover and providing a direct alternative, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states what the tool covers, what it does not cover ('Does not check backups'), and points to a sibling tool ('use get_pbs_status') as the alternative. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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