ssh_monitor

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden—and it does excellently. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, changes no remote state, requires no sudo, and only gathers a single snapshot even when interval and duration are provided. This is transparent and prevents misuse.

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?

Four sentences with no filler. The main capability is front-loaded, parameter behavior is explained, and important caveats about monitoring semantics, sudo, and platform support each earn their place.

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?

The core call-time decision points are covered: inputs, default behavior, safety, and platform caveats. Since there is no output schema, the description could have been slightly more explicit about the shape or format of the returned snapshot, but the named commands and resource categories give a reasonable expectation.

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 schema already covers all parameters at 100%, but the description adds real value by explaining that type defaults to overview, enumerating its possible values, and clarifying that interval and duration do not actually enable continuous monitoring. This goes beyond the schema without being redundant.

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 and resource: 'Collects a read-only snapshot of system resources on the named Linux server.' It also names the inspection commands and the type parameter's view options, which clearly distinguishes it from execution, transfer, session, and tunnel siblings.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: read-only monitoring without state changes or sudo, and notes a Linux-only expectation with potential empty output on Windows. It does not explicitly name alternatives like ssh_execute or ssh_execute_sudo, so it falls just short of a 5.

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