server_guard

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

Describes effects of each action (installs/removes cron, shows status with last check time and breaches) and requires SSH, providing depth beyond annotations (idempotentHint, etc.). No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences cover actions and prerequisite; efficient but could slightly improve structure with bullet points or clearer separation.

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?

Covers core functionality and output (status info), though missing details on error handling or non-SSH scenarios; adequate for agent understanding.

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?

Adds meaning to each action parameter with practical details (e.g., 'start installs guard cron') and explains server auto-selection; schema coverage is 100% but description enriches understanding.

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?

Clearly states it manages a security monitoring daemon with specific actions (start, stop, status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like server_audit or server_backup.

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?

Explicitly mentions SSH requirement, implying the tool is for local server management; does not compare to alternatives but context from siblings suggests specialization.

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