wsl_create_temp

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that existing distros are left untouched, describes the default source as a tiny Alpine minirootfs, and gives the return format. It does not mention every side effect, but the annotations plus this context are sufficient.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It leads with the main action, explains the default behavior, names related tools, lists alternatives, and includes an Args/Returns summary. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of a well-detailed schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: it names all relevant parameters, gives the return format, and places the tool in the wsl lifecycle. It does not cover prerequisite details like admin rights or cleanup edge cases, but these are not essential for a basic agent invocation.

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 provides detailed descriptions for each property in WslCreateInput, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists the parameter names ('optional name, rootfs_url, clone_from, base_tar, timeout') and mentions the default Alpine source, but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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's purpose: 'Provision a throwaway WSL distro on demand for running Linux software.' It uses a specific verb (provision/create) and resource (throwaway WSL distro), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wsl_run and wsl_destroy by explicitly referencing them as complementary steps in the lifecycle.

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 provides explicit usage context: default behavior (download Alpine), relationship to sibling tools ('Use wsl_run to run commands in it and wsl_destroy to tear it down'), and alternative configuration paths ('Alternatively clone_from an existing distro or import base_tar'). This clearly tells the agent when and how to use this tool versus others.

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