build_server_memory

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses SSH probe behavior, cache writing, and detailed return structure including failure reasons. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects beyond cache writes, which is a minor gap.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and context, followed by return structure and special case. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly without loss, but structure is logical.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the JSON return structure including all fields and special reason codes. It also references sibling tool get_server_memory. Parameters are well explained. The description is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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%. Description adds value by clarifying that omitting 'modules' probes all enabled modules (schema only says 'Module names to probe'). Other parameter details match schema.

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 'Build memory from scratch' and the resource 'managed instance', listing probed modules (OS, runtimes, etc.) and output destination. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing get_server_memory's return 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: when get_server_memory returns 'missing' or for a fresh full scan. Implicitly advises against unnecessary use via 'fresh full scan' wording. Includes guidance on interpreting failure results (all_probers_failed → SSH/auth issue). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sufficient.

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