jumpserver_baseline_capture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this by explicitly stating it writes a file and is NOT read-only. It also discloses the concrete side effect and its location (data/baselines/<name>.json), which adds value beyond the annotations. It stops short of noting that a second capture with the same name fails without overwrite=true, which is the key non-idempotency behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and artifact, followed by the pairing workflow and the write warning. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains where results land (data/baselines/<name>.json) and what state is included. It is essentially complete for invocation, though it omits failure behavior on duplicate names and any auth/permission requirement for writing.

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 six parameters including the name format, profile enum, target limit, and overwrite flag. The description only gestures at 'NAMED' and 'one or more servers', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Capture) and resource (a NAMED baseline snapshot of one or more servers), then enumerates exactly what is captured (OS, kernel, cores, memory, disks, listening ports, services, roles). An agent can distinguish it from jumpserver_baseline_compare and jumpserver_snapshot without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: pair with jumpserver_baseline_compare before and after a change window. That names the sibling and the workflow condition that selects it. It does not state when not to use it or the overwrite/re-capture prerequisite, so it falls short of a full 5.

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