mcphost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it may reuse an existing checkout session for the same plan, defaults to pro, and returns billing_unavailable when no Stripe key is configured. It also communicates an ordering prerequisite (call billing.plans first). It stops short of describing full payment flow side effects or success return shape, but it is more transparent than most.

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 with no filler: first sentence delivers the action and default, second sentence covers the failure mode and remediation. It is front-loaded and every clause earns its 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action, default behavior, a specific error case, and a prerequisite call. The only notable gap is that it does not explicitly state the success return value (the checkout URL), though it is strongly implied by the first sentence.

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 description coverage is 50%: tenant_key has a schema description, plan does not. The description adds that plan defaults to 'pro', which helps clarify plan's optionality, but it does not enumerate valid plan values or further explain how plan interacts with the checkout flow. This partial compensation keeps it average.

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?

States a precise action: create (or reuse) a Stripe Checkout URL to upgrade the tenant, defaulting to the pro plan. It clearly distinguishes from sibling billing.plans by focusing on checkout/upgrade, and explicitly references billing.plans as a prerequisite check.

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?

Provides clear context: use this tool to upgrade the tenant, with the plan defaulting to pro. It explicitly instructs to call billing.plans first to check for Stripe key configuration, giving a concrete alternative for a specific failure condition. It does not discuss all possible sibling tools, but the key routing scenario is covered.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one meaningful behavior: anonymous and tenant callers see identical results. It does not state side effects, caching, or error behavior, though the read-oriented nature is implied by 'catalog.'

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 a single, dense sentence that puts the primary purpose first and adds the anonymous-caller note without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple scope.

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 simple catalog query with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key return content: prices, quotas, and Stripe configuration. It could go further by noting response shape or pagination, but none is likely needed at this complexity level.

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 already documents tenant_key at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce that tenant identity likely does not alter the response.

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 identifies the resource (plan catalog) and the exact content returned (price and quotas per plan, plus Stripe configuration status). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list,' but the intent is unambiguous and distinct from the billing checkout/status 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 implies this tool is for inspecting plan catalog data, and it provides a useful caller context: anonymous callers receive the same answer as tenants. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over billing.checkout or billing.status, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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

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

The description tells the caller what information is returned, which strongly implies a read-only status lookup. Since no annotations are provided, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or how authentication/tenant resolution is handled beyond the schema note on tenant_key.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the tenant scope and then lists the exact data points returned, making 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?

Given the single optional parameter and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main return values: plan, quota usage, and reset time. The missing explicit usage and side-effect caveats are minor for a simple status lookup.

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 already fully documents the only parameter, tenant_key, including the precedence rule with the Authorization header. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline for high schema coverage applies.

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 identifies the resource (this tenant's billing status) and the specific information returned: plan, quota usage, and reset time. It is clear enough to be distinguished from billing.plans, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 phrasing implies the tool should be used when the agent needs the current tenant's plan or quota consumption. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as billing.plans or host.usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly declares 'Read-only.' and explains the auth behavior: 'Unauthenticated callers get the signup step first.' It also mentions that output includes 'current limits,' giving a preview of side-effect-free behavior. This is good disclosure for a read-only tool.

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 short sentences, each adding new information. The main outcome is front-loaded, followed by safety, usage, and auth context. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 simple read-only tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, read-only behavior, and auth. It does not detail the exact output format, but it does say it returns a sequence of calls and current limits, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the result.

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 50%: `tenant_key` has a description, but `kind` only has a type. The description compensates by explaining `kind` as 'a working tool of `kind`,' giving it semantic meaning. It also reinforces `tenant_key`'s signup context. The meaning is not exhaustive but covers the key gap.

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 starts with a precise outcome: 'Return the shortest ordered sequence of calls to a working tool of `kind`, with your namespace and a filled-in example already substituted in, plus the current limits.' This clearly identifies the action, the resource, and the output. It also differentiates from siblings by naming host.tool_publish and positioning itself as a prerequisite.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call this before host.tool_publish if you're not sure what a spec should look like.' This clearly states when to use the tool. However, it does not mention any exclusion cases or compare against other siblings like host.tool_list or host.registry_publish, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key prerequisite and the tenant-scoped nature of the operation. However, it does not disclose whether publishing overwrites existing registry data, what permissions are required beyond the named verification, or what success/failure looks like.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the prerequisites in a parenthetical. It contains no wasted words and is easy to parse.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It names necessary prerequisites, but it does not explain return values, failure modes, idempotency, or what the registry publish operation changes. This is a clear gap even though the parameter count is low.

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 for tenant_key is 100%, so the schema already explains the parameter thoroughly, including the Authorization header precedence. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline for full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Publish') and a clear resource ('this tenant's server.json' to the configured MCP registry). It is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like host.tool_publish, which targets a different publishing concept.

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 explicit prerequisites: --registry-url must be configured and admin.tenant_verify_namespace must be run first. This gives an agent actionable preconditions, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use the tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a meaningful guarantee ('never their values') and scopes results to the tenant, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, ordering, empty results, or authentication failure behavior, leaving some gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: it states the action, the scope, the resource, and the critical behavior (names only, never values).

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 simple one-optional-parameter read-only listing tool, the description plus fully covered schema is sufficient. The agent knows what the tool returns (secret names), the tenant scoping, and the one authentication nuance. No output schema exists, but the description's 'secret names' makes the return intent clear.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains tenant_key's conditional nature and precedence with the Authorization header. The tool description adds little beyond the word 'tenant's,' which slightly reinforces the parameter's scope but does not materially expand on 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('secret names'), and scopes it ('this tenant's'). It also clarifies a key boundary ('never their values'), making it easy to distinguish from value-returning or value-setting operations and from sibling tools like host.secret_set.

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 by stating it lists secret names rather than setting or retrieving values, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The parameter schema adds an auth-header condition, but the tool description itself offers no direct 'use this instead of that' guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions encryption and tenant namespace, but does not disclose whether existing secrets are overwritten, what authentication is required, or what errors or side effects might occur. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, clearly worded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is underspecified. It lacks overwrite behavior, auth requirements, and return/response details, so an agent can attempt a call but cannot anticipate important outcomes or edge cases.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only tenant_key has a description), and the tool description does not explain the required 'name' and 'value' parameters. Although the property names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Store'), a concrete resource ('an encrypted secret value'), and a scope ('under this tenant's namespace'). This clearly identifies it as a write operation and differentiates it from the sibling host.secret_list without needing to name it.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as host.secret_list or other host tools. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage entirely from context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: this is a real (not test) invocation, it counts toward host.usage, and it appears in host.tool_logs. It does not describe side effects of the underlying tool, but those are tool-specific and cannot be stated generically.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded; the caveats about metering, logging, and tool_test are all relevant and each phrase earns its 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?

Adequate for a generic dispatch tool, but no output schema or annotations forces the description to cover more: it omits what the response contains and does not mention error/auth conditions beyond the schema. The local-name distinction is helpful, yet return behavior is left unstated.

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 only 33%; the description adds meaning for 'name' (local vs namespaced) but does not clarify 'args' beyond its object type or supplement tenant_key beyond the schema. With low coverage, the description should compensate more for the params.

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?

Starts with a concrete action ('Invoke a tool this tenant has already published') and clearly identifies resource and naming mode ('by its local name'). It also distinguishes the operation from a direct namespaced call and from host.tool_test.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when this call is appropriate: to get a real, metered invocation when the session cannot see its own namespaced name. It also gives a direct exclusion by contrasting with host.tool_test (no usage/log impact).

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

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

With no annotations supplied, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'this tenant's published tools' conveys scoping, but the description does not explicitly state that nothing is mutated, nor does it describe ordering, pagination, or error behavior. Annotations are absent, so a 3 reflects that the basics are present but the behavioral details are thin.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the essential purpose. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name, and every word earns its 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with zero required parameters, the description plus the tenant_key schema note is nearly complete. The main missing information is the return format or pagination, but no output schema exists and the call would still be correctly selected and invoked with the provided text.

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 single parameter, tenant_key, has 100% schema-description coverage: the schema already explains where the key comes from and the precedence between the Authorization header and the key. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is a clear, specific statement: 'List this tenant's published tools.' It names the verb (list), the resource (published tools), and the scope (this tenant), which separates it from sibling tools like host.secret_list or host.tool_logs on first read.

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 intended use is implied by the active verb and 'published tools' scope, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as host.tool_publish or host.tool_run. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided; only the tenant_key schema description gives auth-related usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return' and 'log lines' clearly imply a read-only retrieval operation, and 'this tenant's tools' establishes scoping. However, it does not disclose authentication expectations, possible failure modes, or whether results are ordered or truncated beyond the generic 'most recent.'

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes: 'return,' 'most recent,' 'log lines,' 'this tenant's tools,' and 'one of' all add meaningful scoping.

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 simple read-only log tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe the return format, default limit behavior, or what happens when no logs exist, and it lacks guidance about the Authorization/tenant_key interplay that is only present in the schema.

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 description coverage is low (33%), so the description partially compensates by indicating the resource is a tool and that logs are tenant-scoped. It does not explicitly explain the 'limit' parameter or that 'name' identifies the specific tool, though 'one of this tenant's tools' and 'most recent log lines' provide reasonable inference.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('most recent log lines for one of this tenant's tools'), clearly identifying what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like host.tool_list, host.tool_run, and host.tool_test by focusing on log retrieval rather than listing, executing, or testing tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention related tools such as host.tool_run or host.tool_test whose results might be inspected through logs. There is no implied usage context beyond the obvious 'when you need logs,' and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and meets it. It reveals name validation rules, rejection message contents, spec inference behavior, and per-kind requirements. This lets an agent anticipate both validation failures and how spec processing works.

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 long but dense and well-structured: purpose first, then concrete spec examples, then validation and follow-up guidance. Every block earns its place, and the embedded examples are essential for correct invocation.

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?

It covers required parameters, spec variants, validation rules, failure behavior, and suggested next steps. The only notable gaps are the lack of explicit information about the success response shape and whether republishing an existing name overwrites or rejects. These are minor given the overall richness of the definition.

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 description coverage is only 25%, and the description compensates thoroughly. It explains what name must look like, what kind means via concrete examples, and exactly what spec shapes are valid for echo/http/python. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 clear action and scope: 'Publish a tool of a registered kind under this tenant's namespace.' It also enumerates concrete kind examples (echo, http, python), so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does and can distinguish it from siblings like host.registry_publish.

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?

It gives practical follow-up guidance, such as trying host.tool_test before a real call or calling host.quickstart(kind) for a worked example. It does not explicitly contrast with host.registry_publish or state when not to use the tool, but the phrase 'registered kind' and the per-kind spec examples provide strong contextual guidance.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Remove' does signal a destructive mutation, but the description omits irreversibility, permission/auth requirements, and side effects on running tools or published metadata.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The most important scoping detail—'local name'—is included, and every word earns its 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?

For a simple two-parameter destructive tool, the description gives the essential operation and target, but lacks caveats about reversibility, authentication context beyond tenant_key, and expected result or error behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave some uncertainty for an agent.

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 description coverage is 50%: tenant_key is already well described, and the description adds the key fact that 'name' is the local name rather than a registry/global name. It does not specify expected format or the consequence of removing a nonexistent tool, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a clear resource ('a published tool'), and a scope qualifier ('by its local name'). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like host.tool_publish or host.tool_list.

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?

It implies the trigger condition—use when you want to remove a published tool—but never states exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. An agent can infer the basic use case, but no explicit when-not or comparison guidance is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses sandbox equality, 64 KiB caps on stdout/stderr, exit code inclusion, absence of calls/metering, unsupported-kinds error, and rate limiting independent of host.usage. This is exemplary behavioral transparency for a debug tool.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose appears first, followed by behavior, constraints, and rate limiting. Every sentence adds information relevant to calling the tool correctly.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: behavior, output limits, side effects (no metering), supported kinds, error case, and rate limit. Given the tool's complexity, this is a complete and self-sufficient description for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only tenant_key is described), and the description does not explain the 'name' or 'args' parameters. It references 'published tool' and 'kinds', which indirectly hints at name, but the meaning of 'args' and how name relates to published tools is left to inference. With low coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Debug run of a published tool', and clearly contrasts it with 'a real call', distinguishing it from sibling tools like host.tool_call and host.tool_test. It also specifies the unique output characteristics (stdout/stderr, exit code) that make this a distinct debugging operation.

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 implies use for debugging by contrasting with a 'real call' and explaining when it records no metering and no calls row. It also states the limitation to subprocess-supporting kinds and the rate limit, giving concrete conditions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use X instead when you need metering', so a small gap remains.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it states that a real call is performed, that no calls row is recorded, that the request is echoed, and that secrets are redacted. This is unusually explicit about side effects and output for a short description.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by behavioral qualifiers. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 description covers the tool's side-effect profile and return behavior ("echoes the rendered request back"), which is substantial given there is no output schema. It is slightly incomplete only because parameter semantics for the two required fields are not spelled out and error behavior is unstated.

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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate: it never explicitly explains what `name` should contain or how `args` should be structured. The meaning of `args` as the rendered request payload is only weakly implied.

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 ("Dry-run") and resource ("a published tool"), then clarifies what makes this distinct: it performs the real call but records no calls row and echoes the rendered request back. This clearly differentiates it from execution siblings like host.tool_call and host.tool_run.

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 phrase "for debugging a spec" provides a clear when-to-use context, and the dry-run versus real-call contrast implies this is a diagnostic alternative to normal execution. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state exclusions, so it stops just short of full guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the nature of the result—calls, errors, and duration percentiles—and scopes it to a tenant, which is helpful. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how tenant authentication is resolved, how windows are interpreted, or whether results are aggregated or raw.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the main output metrics and scoping context, making it easy to parse; it is perhaps too sparse, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness or structure issue.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important operational details unresolved: window value format, default behavior for optional parameters, and whether the metrics are counts, rates, or per-request breakdowns. The tenant_key/auth nuance is covered by the schema, but the most ambiguous parameter, window, is not explained sufficiently for a confident call.

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 description coverage is only 50%: tenant_key is documented in the schema, but window has no description. The description's phrase 'over a window' only loosely echoes the parameter and does not explain accepted formats, defaults, or examples, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented window parameter.

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 names the specific resource (host usage) and the key metrics returned: calls, errors, and duration percentiles, scoped to a tenant over a window. It is clearer than the tool name alone, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like host.tool_logs.

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 a usage/observability purpose: an agent would use it to inspect call volumes, failures, and latency percentiles for a tenant over a time window. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related tools such as host.tool_logs, host.tool_call, or host.tool_run, and it does not mention any exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clarifies whose identity is returned and implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't discuss response shape, error cases, or how identity is resolved. The auth precedence detail lives only in the schema, not the description.

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?

Single sentence with a front-loaded verb and zero filler. Every word adds meaning.

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 simple whoami tool, the description plus a complete parameter schema are adequate, but there is no output schema and the description doesn't specify what the returned 'identity' contains. An agent may still be uncertain whether it receives a key, an object, or a display name.

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 description coverage is 100% and fully documents tenant_key's meaning and precedence. The description adds no extra parameter information, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description names a specific action and target: 'Return the calling tenant's identity.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools focused on billing, secrets, tools, and signup, since none of those surface the caller's identity.

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 one-liner implies the natural use case of identifying the current tenant, and the schema adds the nuance about when tenant_key is needed versus an Authorization header. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is clear enough.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation creates a tenant (a side effect), requires no authentication, and returns a bearer key and namespace. It does not cover failure modes or idempotency, but it covers the essential behavior for a simple signup tool.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and output, then adds the critical authentication context. Every word earns its 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?

For a simple one-parameter, unauthenticated tool, the description is complete: it explains what is created, what is returned, and the authentication requirement. No output schema exists, so the description's mention of the bearer key and namespace fills that gap.

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 documents the only parameter, 'name', as the display name, with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Create a tenant') and the key outputs (bearer key and namespace). It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling billing, host, and registry tools by identifying it as the tenant-creation entry point.

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 provides clear usage context by noting the endpoint is 'Unauthenticated,' implying this is the first step before authentication and before using authenticated sibling tools like host.whoami. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario is reasonably clear.

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