build_server_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool probes over SSH, writes to local cache, and returns detailed success/failure JSON with reasons. It also explains common failure modes (SSH reachability/auth). However, it doesn't explicitly state that it overwrites the existing cache (implied by 'build from scratch'), nor does it mention required SSH permissions. Still, it is quite transparent.

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 moderately concise and well-structured: it starts with the primary action, then gives usage condition, then lists return fields, and finally explains failure handling. Each sentence serves a clear purpose. A slight reduction in length could improve conciseness, but it's effective.

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 complexity (SSH probing, multiple modules, caching) and absence of an output schema, the description covers the return format, failure reasons, and troubleshooting. It lacks details about error handling when the instance is invalid or unreachable beyond SSH issues, and doesn't specify timeout behavior. Still, it provides sufficient context for most use cases.

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 both parameters well. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond saying 'all enabled modules' (which matches schema). No extra usage hints or format details are provided, so the description adds minimal value over the schema. 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 clearly states the tool builds memory from scratch by probing modules over SSH, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_server_memory by specifying when to call it (when get_server_memory returns code='missing').

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this when get_server_memory returns code='missing', or when you want a fresh full scan.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool vs. alternatives, with a clear condition and purpose.

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