build_server_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the SSH-based probing side effect, the local-cache write, and the full set of count=0 reason codes (opt_out | disabled | no_modules_matched | all_probers_failed) plus remediation for the SSH auth case. It stops short of stating idempotency/overwrite behavior, cost, or expected duration, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and trigger, then return shape and failure semantics in descending order of importance. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the long parenthetical reason-code list and the final remediation sentence make it longer than strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by enumerating the returned fields (instance_id, count, successes, failures) and the conditional 'reason' code. For a two-parameter build tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by enumerating what the probed modules actually are ('OS, runtimes, services, web stack, logs, etc.') and confirming the omit-to-probe-all default. It adds real value to the 'modules' parameter rather than restating it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build memory from scratch for a managed instance') and immediately distinguishes scope: it probes all enabled modules over SSH and writes to the local cache. An agent can separate this from get_server_memory and refresh_server_memory without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition ('Call this when get_server_memory returns code="missing"') and the alternative motivation ('when you want a fresh full scan'), which routes the agent between the sibling memory tools. Nothing is left to inference.

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