server_secure

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it details what each action installs/configures (e.g., SSH hardening, fail2ban, UFW) and notes requirements. No contradictions; behavior is well-disclosed given the safety profile.

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 dense but well-structured, grouping actions by category and using colons to separate names from explanations. It is front-loaded with the main verb and covers all actions in one paragraph. Minor improvement would be bullet points, but current format is concise and scannable.

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 complexity (10 actions, multiple parameters), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all action groups, prerequisites (SSH), alternatives (server_lock), and parameter requirements. No gaps remain for the agent to guess. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed in description.

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 baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter understanding by clarifying conditional requirements (port for specific actions, domain for others) and noting defaults (protocol tcp, ssl true). This adds value beyond the static schema enumerations.

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: 'Secure Kastell servers' and enumerates all specific actions (secure-setup, secure-audit, firewall-*, domain-*). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'server_lock', which is mentioned as an alternative for full one-shot hardening. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action, including required parameters (e.g., port for firewall-add/remove, domain for domain-set/check). It notes that all actions require SSH access and directs users to 'server_lock' for a different use case. This is comprehensive and actionable.

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