inspect_host

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

The verb 'Inspect' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose details such as whether the inspection is local or remote, potential latency, failure modes, or implications of host auto-detection.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific inspection areas. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only inspection tool with optional, well-documented parameters and an output schema available, the description is largely complete. It lacks explicit usage boundaries relative to siblings, but the purpose and scope are clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions: host_id is optional and auto-detected, workspace defaults to the current directory. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Inspect') and a clear resource ('host') with enumerated focus areas: runtime capabilities, available models, supported effort values, and execution topology. This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_setup_status, get_profile, and configuration-related tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 when to use the tool: when you need host runtime capabilities, models, effort values, or topology. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as get_setup_status or get_profile, so the guidance is left to inference.

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