ansible-gather-facts

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that facts are gathered and returned, without mentioning idempotency, permission requirements, performance implications, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for an agent to assess risk or side effects.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff, but could be slightly expanded to cover key behavioral aspects without losing conciseness.

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 has 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, an output schema (not shown), and many sibling tools, the description is far too minimal. It lacks details on what facts are returned, how to filter, and relationship to similar tools. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation for any of the 7 parameters (e.g., filter, verbose, gather_subset). An agent receives no guidance on how to use these parameters effectively.

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 it gathers facts using the Ansible setup module and returns parsed per-host facts. It specifies the resource (facts) and action (gather), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ansible-diagnose-host or ansible-health-monitor that may also collect host 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, common use cases, or situations where another tool like ansible-ping or ansible-remote-command would be preferred.

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