check_security

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

The description discloses what is checked and mentions it returns a 'Security audit report.' However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it requires elevated permissions, or the impact on the remote host. The listed checks imply a passive audit, but this is not stated.

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 well-structured with a summary, a bullet list of checks, an args section, and a returns section. It is concise, every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema (per context), the description sufficiently explains the operation and parameter. The return value is vaguely described as 'Security audit report,' but given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail the structure.

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?

The input schema only provides type and default for host_name, with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining it as 'Named host from SSH_HOSTS config; uses default host if omitted.' This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the 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 'Run a basic security audit of the remote server' and enumerates specific checks (failed login attempts, listening ports, SUID files, world-writable directories, recent auth log entries). This makes the tool's purpose specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_disk_health or check_network_connectivity.

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 establishes a clear usage context: it is a basic security audit covering specific areas. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this tool over general health or performance checks.

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