fleet_health_snapshot

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool is read-only, uses SSH fan-out, and lists unreachable hosts separately. It does not detail error handling or performance implications, but the main behavioral traits are covered adequately.

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?

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place; no filler. Structured clearly with the main function first, then details.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, how it works (SSH fan-out), what metrics it collects, and key behaviors (unreachable separate, read-only). An agent can decide to use it appropriately.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional explanation for the parameters (region, timeout, running_only). The schema itself provides their descriptions, so no extra value from the description.

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's purpose: to triage the whole fleet via SSH fan-out, collecting specific metrics (load, CPU, memory, php-fpm, web stack). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fleet-wide health, contrasting with individual instance tools like get_server_info. The verb 'triage' and 'surfaces the sick box' are precise.

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 implies when to use it: for fleet-wide health without manual SSH. It mentions unreachable hosts are listed separately, giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools (e.g., list_instances, get_server_info).

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