Check hosts

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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world profile, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. 'Bypassing the cache' is a genuine behavioral disclosure not present in the annotations, but the description stays silent on the SSH-probe/authentication implications of the operation (which only the schema hints at).

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?

A single short sentence with the key scope ('right now, bypassing the cache') front-loaded and no wasted words.

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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough for correct invocation. It could note that 'deep' performs an actual login attempt, but the schema already carries that detail.

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%, so both aliases and deep are fully documented in the schema, including the TCP-vs-login distinction and the behavior for unknown aliases. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check the availability of specific hosts') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('right now, bypassing the cache') that distinguishes it from any cached-status path. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_hosts or get_host, so the differentiation from those is left implicit.

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?

'Right now, bypassing the cache' implies the tool is for cases needing fresh, real-time status rather than stored data. However, no sibling alternative is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is given, so usage is only implied.

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