overview

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

The description marks the tool as [READ], indicating it is non-destructive. It describes the output content (version, container state rollup, disk) but does not elaborate on performance, data freshness, or any rate limits. Given no annotations, the transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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 concise: a one-line summary with [READ] prefix, a usage sentence, and a parameter note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics. It explains when to call and what to expect, making it complete for an overview 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?

For the single optional parameter 'target', the description explains it is a 'Target name from config' and to omit for the default. This adds contextual meaning beyond the schema's type and default, though 'config' could be clarified.

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 explicitly states it provides a 'One-shot host overview: version + container state rollup + disk.' The [READ] prefix and triage guidance clearly distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on specific resources.

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 directly says 'Call this first to triage a container host before drilling into a specific container, image, or volume.' This gives explicit when-to-use advice and implies alternatives are the more specific tools.

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