Analyze Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds a notable behavioral detail—output is in 'human language'—but does not disclose potential side effects of establishing an SSH connection, resource usage, or whether any server-side modifications occur. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core message, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has moderate complexity (4 parameters, nested connection object) but an output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description, however, lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., SSH credentials, network access) and doesn't differentiate from siblings. Given the rich schema and annotations, a score of 3 reflects that it is minimally viable but has clear gaps in contextual guidance.

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 provides no parameter-specific information. However, the schema has high coverage (75%), including descriptions for connection fields, include_network, duration_minutes, and include_processes. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description adds minimal value beyond it, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 states a clear action ('Collect metrics') and a clear outcome ('explain any anomalies in human language'), identifying the tool's core purpose. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this from siblings like analyze_server_snapshot, but the phrasing implies live collection vs snapshot analysis, which provides some differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., SSH access), or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it might be appropriate.

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