fleet_health_snapshot

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also notes that unreachable hosts are listed separately. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and adequately discloses the tool's behavior, though it could mention SSH key requirements.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose and method, and every word adds value. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, read-only nature, and unreachable host handling. It does not detail return format or performance characteristics, but these are not critical for this triage 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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. For example, the 'region' parameter is described as 'Optional region filter' in both the description and schema, providing no additional insight.

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 'Triage the whole fleet in one table via SSH fan-out' and lists specific metrics (load, CPU, memory, php-fpm, web stack). It effectively conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are focused on individual servers or specific AWS operations.

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 the tool: for a quick fleet-wide health check without manual SSH. It mentions 'Surfaces the sick box without SSH'ing into each by hand,' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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