ssh_system_info

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

The word 'gather' implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether elevated permissions are needed, whether any remote commands are executed that could have side effects, or how connection/authentication failures are surfaced. This is acceptable for a seemingly non-destructive tool, but not fully transparent.

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 one concise sentence with the action and object front-loaded, followed by a concrete list of what the overview includes. Every word contributes meaning and there is no redundancy with the tool name.

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?

The description covers the output content (OS, kernel, uptime, load, RAM, disk) which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it does not mention response structure, error conditions, required permissions, or whether it executes privileged commands. These missing details reduce completeness for an SSH-based tool.

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 single parameter serverId is already well described in the schema ('The ID of the configured server'). The description's mention of 'remote server' adds minimal semantic value beyond that, so it neither compensates for nor conflicts with the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and object ('Gather comprehensive diagnostic overview of a remote server') and enumerates the exact data points returned (OS version, kernel, uptime, load averages, RAM, disk mounts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_execute_command or ssh_read_file, which serve different purposes.

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 use case is implied: use this when you need overall system health/configuration of a server. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over ssh_execute_command, ssh_service_status, or other siblings, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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