host_test

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

The description adds a useful behavioral guarantee around not exposing credentials and specifies that the tool checks SSH authentication and workspace access. However, it does not address the destructiveHint=true annotation or explain any side effects a 'test' may have on the remote host; this is a gap but not a direct contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, target, scope, and an important security property efficiently.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description is too sparse for fully reliable invocation: it lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and any mention of side effects despite destructiveHint=true. An agent can guess the required host_id, but timeout and full_output remain ambiguous.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of host_id, timeout, or full_output. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify what timeout bounds, what full_output returns, or how host_id relates to the configured hosts list.

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 ('Test') and a specific resource scope ('one configured host's SSH authentication and workspace access'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like host_exec, hosts_list, and the shared/read/write tools. It also adds a clarifying constraint ('without exposing credentials').

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 this is a pre-flight or connectivity check for a configured host, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus host_exec, hosts_list, or other siblings. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance.

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