server_secure

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as that actions modify SSH and firewall settings and require SSH access. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which align with the described actions. No contradictions found.

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 efficient, front-loading the purpose and then listing actions in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, though it is somewhat dense and could benefit from more explicit bullet points or subsections for readability.

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 complexity (10 actions, 6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers each action's effect, required parameters, and the SSH prerequisite. It also mentions the sibling server_lock. Missing details include return values and error conditions, but overall it is fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description reiterates some parameter details (e.g., port required for firewall-add/remove) but adds little new information beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 'Secure Kastell servers' and enumerates specific subcategories (Secure, Firewall, Domain) with distinct actions. It distinguishes from sibling tool server_lock by noting it is for full one-shot hardening, ensuring the agent knows when to use which tool.

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 says 'For full one-shot hardening ... use server_lock instead,' providing a clear alternative. It also states the requirement 'All require SSH access to server.' However, it does not discuss when to use this tool vs other siblings like server_audit or server_manage.

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