uptime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Report' implies a non-mutating read, but the description does not state permissions, prerequisites, failure modes, or whether the target must be in inventory. It is adequate for a simple read-only diagnostic, 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 wasted words. It communicates the action and the exact metrics returned immediately.

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?

For a simple read-only diagnostic with a fully documented single parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is measured but omits any prerequisite or error-handling context, leaving a minor gap.

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 the single required 'server' parameter as an inventory server name. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond reinforcing that the target is a Linux server, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific reporting action and two concrete outputs: server uptime and 1/5/15-minute load averages. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostic tools like cpu_usage, memory_usage, and kernel_version, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not tell the agent how this differs from or complements sibling tools such as cpu_usage or running_processes, leaving usage context to inference.

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