system_overview

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only lists what is collected and gives no hint about potential side effects, required privileges, network behavior, or whether it performs read-only actions. The word 'collect' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit, nor does it warn about possible latency, error conditions, or how the tool accesses the remote host.

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, efficiently structured sentence. It front-loads the verb and object, then uses a colon to introduce a compact list of components. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant phrasing or verbose elaboration.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides the essential scope of what is collected. However, it lacks usage context and any indication of behavioral constraints such as whether the host must be online or whether the tool requires special permissions. Given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete but leaves some context to be inferred.

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 already provides a description for 'host' ('Configured host name'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description simply names the operation without adding any extra semantic detail about the parameter, such as accepted formats, defaults, or relationship to host configuration. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb, 'Collect', and a clear resource, 'health snapshot', then enumerates the concrete components (load, memory, disk, top processes, failed units). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like service_status, which targets only services, or run_command, which executes arbitrary commands. An agent can immediately understand that this tool provides a broad system-level overview.

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 its alternatives. It does not mention that service_status should be used for deeper service details, or that check_connection is for basic connectivity. There is no context about suitable scenarios, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and description.

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