get_host_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' and lists returned metrics, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention authentication requirements, performance characteristics, or any side effects. The disclosure is minimal and does not add much beyond the literal meaning of the tool's name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and scope. Every element (live, metrics, categories, host) is essential; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It lists the categories of metrics returned, giving the agent a solid idea of what to expect. However, it does not specify the structure of the response (e.g., nested objects, units, timestamps), which would be valuable but not critical for invoking the tool 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 input schema already describes the single parameter 'id' as 'The SSH host ID' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds nothing beyond 'for a host', so it does not enrich the parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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's function: 'Get live metrics (CPU, memory, disk, network, processes, system info) for a host.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('live metrics'), and enumerates the metric categories, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_host_status that likely provide simple availability status.

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—when you need detailed performance metrics for a host—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_host_status or list_ssh_hosts. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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