Linux MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions SSH connectivity for remote execution, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what format the CPU information is returned in, whether it's a read-only operation, or any performance/rate limiting considerations. The description is minimal beyond the basic execution method.

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 perfectly structured and concise - purpose statement followed by parameter documentation in a clear format. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, and the parameter explanations are necessary for understanding the conditional logic. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and only 2 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, the description is reasonably complete for basic usage. However, for a system monitoring tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention whether this requires elevated privileges, what specific CPU metrics are returned, or any dependencies/requirements for remote SSH execution.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the conditional relationship between host and username parameters ('required if host is provided') and clarifies that execution happens locally if host is not provided. This semantic context is crucial for proper tool invocation and isn't captured in the schema's type definitions alone.

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 with 'Get CPU information and load averages', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_memory_info or get_system_info by focusing specifically on CPU data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_hardware_info which might include CPU information as part of broader hardware data.

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 implied usage guidance through parameter documentation - it explains when host parameter is needed and when username is required. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_system_info or get_hardware_info, nor does it provide context about what specific CPU information is returned versus other tools.

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