probe_host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the kinds of information reported (platform, libraries, soundfonts, MIDI ports, audio playback, network), implying a read-only inspection of host capabilities. However, it does not explicitly state whether it has side effects or requires any setup, so it is not fully transparent about operational behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a usage directive. Every phrase adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient information about what it reports and when to use it. It could be more detailed about the response format, but the listed categories give the agent a clear picture of expected information.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 since there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 the specific verb 'Report' and clearly defines the resource as 'what this machine can do', listing concrete categories (platform, libraries, soundfonts, MIDI ports, audio playback, network). This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_features or read_library, which focus on musical content rather than host capabilities.

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 final sentence explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it before choosing how to render or connect.' This gives clear contextual placement, though it does not name specific alternative tools or exclusions, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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