server_evidence

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it writes to a local directory (~/.kastell/evidence/...) and returns a manifest with SHA256 checksums. It also mentions optional Docker and sysinfo flags. This complements the annotations which lack destructive or idempotent hints.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it collects, where it writes, and what it returns. It does not mention runtime considerations or prerequisites but is largely complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal parameter insight beyond the schema, though it does highlight the output (manifest with checksums).

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 purpose: 'Collect forensic evidence package from a server.' It lists specific data collected (firewall rules, auth.log, etc.) and distinguishes it from siblings like server_audit or server_logs by focusing on comprehensive evidence gathering.

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 forensic evidence collection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings such as server_audit or server_logs. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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