ssh_alert_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers. It identifies set as mutating, names the exact config file path, notes write-access requirements, explicitly labels get and check as read-only, reveals the default for enabled, and flags the error case for check.

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: a high-level purpose statement followed by a compact breakdown of the three actions and their side effects. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the mutating/read-only distinction is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description covers actions, side effects, permissions, defaults, and error conditions well. It stops short of describing the exact shape of get/check return values, but the verbal descriptions of 'reads back that config' and 'compares them to stored thresholds' give an agent enough operational clarity.

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. The description adds real value by explaining what the action parameter does for each enum value and by clarifying the enabled default and check error behavior, which the schema alone does not convey. That warrants a step above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Configures and evaluates CPU, memory, and disk usage alert thresholds for a remote server.' It then enumerates the three action modes, making it clear this tool manages alert thresholds rather than performing general SSH execution or monitoring.

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 clearly explains when to use set, get, and check, and includes important constraints like 'blocked on readonly servers' and 'check errors if no config exists yet.' It does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling tools, but the action-specific guidance is strong enough for an agent to route usage correctly.

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