Диагностика сервера по SSH (read-only)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool does not modify the server and enumerates the exact checks performed, which is key behavioral information. It does not describe failure modes or authentication specifics, but the non-destructive guarantee is clearly stated.

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, efficiently front-loading the inspection set and the read-only guarantee. It contains no redundant or extraneous information.

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 simple 4-parameter tool without an output schema, the description combined with the schema adequately conveys the tool's scope and input requirements. It lacks details like timeout behavior or output format, but the essential context is present.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters (key, host, port, user) clearly, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, only listing high-level inspection areas without mapping them to specific inputs.

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 defines the tool as a read-only diagnostic inspection set listing specific checks (uptime, memory, disk, failed units, listening ports, top processes, docker ps). It explicitly distinguishes itself from arbitrary command execution tools by emphasizing a fixed, non-mutating scope.

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 implies usage for safe, read-only server health checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_exec or service_control. The 'nothing changes on the server' clause provides context, but it lacks explicit exclusions or mention of sibling tools.

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