host_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: temporary public URL, ~1h retention, and the use of 'tmpfiles' as the hosting mechanism. It does not mention potential file size limits or security considerations, but the temporary nature is the most crucial behavior and is clearly 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and retention, followed by usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 a single parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, when not to use, and the key temporary-retention behavior. It could mention additional constraints like file size, but for the intended use cases it is reasonably complete.

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 provides no description for the single 'path' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It indicates the path refers to 'a local file' and gives examples (ElevenLabs mp3, product/room photo), but it does not clarify required format (absolute vs relative) or whether the file must exist locally. This is minimal but sufficient for a simple string path.

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+resource: 'Host a local file on a temporary public URL (tmpfiles, ~1h retention).' It also clearly differentiates from sibling upload_asset by explicitly stating that human/persona refs should use upload_asset, and illustrates intended use cases (audio_urls, other_image_urls).

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 provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use for non-asset references that need a provider-fetchable URL' with concrete examples. It also gives an exclusion and alternative: 'Human/persona refs do NOT go here — register those with upload_asset instead.' This names the alternative tool and sets clear boundaries.

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