dsh_host_status

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

Annotations already disclose that this is read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces that by saying 'report.' It adds some context about what is reported but does not disclose return format or potential operational behavior such as network dependency or staleness. No contradiction exists.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the main subject 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with strong annotations, this description is adequate. It could be slightly more complete by saying what shape the report takes or what counts as a 'capability,' but the operational risk and ambiguity are low.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantic burden on the description. The schema is empty and correctly set to disallow additional properties.

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 uses a clear verb ('Report') and names the two things being reported: the connect-only bridge state and DSH Web Host capabilities. It is reasonably specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling dsh_status tool.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dsh_status or dsh_observe. It implies a general status-checking use case but does not state exclusions or conditions for selecting another sibling.

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