check_wsl_status

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 explains that the tool checks both reachability and persistent shell responsiveness, providing some insight, but does not describe return behavior, side effects, error handling, or whether any command is sent to the distro.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with 'Health check' and contains no filler or unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what the agent should expect as a return value or result, which is important for a health check that may indicate success or failure. The description could be more complete by specifying output format or failure behavior.

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% with the 'distro' parameter already described. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify default behavior beyond the schema's mention of defaultDistro.

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 states the tool performs a health check on a WSL distro, confirming reachability and persistent shell responsiveness. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like list_distros (which lists distros) and run_command (which executes commands).

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 usage as a health check before engaging with a distro, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. The purpose is evident, but no direct comparison is made to sibling tools like list_distros or get_process_status.

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