Linux MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the type of information returned ('address and traffic statistics'), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like performance implications, rate limits, or authentication requirements for the optional host parameter.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying what is retrieved and what details are included, with no redundant or vague language.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter), high schema coverage, read-only annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the scope of information returned, which complements the structured data. However, it could better address when to use this tool over siblings for full completeness.

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%, with the host parameter fully documented in the schema as 'Remote host to connect to via SSH'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('network interfaces') with specific details about what information is retrieved ('detailed information about network interfaces including address and traffic statistics'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_network_connections by focusing on interface properties rather than active connections. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_network_connections or get_system_information. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., SSH access for remote hosts) or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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