net_hosts_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. The verbs 'scan' and 'lists' clearly imply a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the explanation about proxy bypass adds behavioral insight. It doesn't explicitly state 'does not modify the file,' but that is strongly implied.

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. The action is front-loaded, followed by the reason the tool exists. 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, the behavior, and the result ('this lists what is pinned'). It could mention edge cases like missing file permissions, but overall it gives enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly omits parameter details that don't exist.

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 a specific action ('Scan'), a concrete resource ('the Windows hosts file'), and a clear scope ('GitHub-related entries'). This cleanly separates it from the siblings, which deal with GitHub status and proxy state rather than host file pinning.

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 context for when the tool is relevant — pinned entries bypass the proxy and can go stale — so an agent understands why to run it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of the strongest guidance.

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