Probe host and guest readiness

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

Annotations already mark read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that it reports current owned state and must be re-called after compaction, that guest scope installs or starts nothing, and that it never claims capture readiness. It also clarifies 'unknown is not idle.' These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct information: purpose, state-freshness caveat, host scope semantics, guest scope semantics, usage boundary, and workflow order. It is dense but not wasteful, and it front-loads the read-only purpose and the key re-call behavior.

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 absence of an output schema, the description summarizes what each scope reports and warns about known pitfalls (unknown vs idle, capture readiness). It also embeds the tool in the relay sequence so an agent knows when and in what order to invoke it. Some exact response structure is not specified, but the essential context is present.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only lists an enum, but the description thoroughly explains both `scope: "host"` and `scope: "guest"` including what each reports and their caveats. This gives an agent the full semantic meaning of the only parameter, even without additional schema descriptions.

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: it probes read-only host/service facts to judge interruptiveness and pick an image. It explicitly distinguishes the two scopes and notes that `host` is not guest readiness, which separates it from a generic probe. The tool's role in the relay workflow is immediately clear.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: before interruptive relay work, and after context compaction rather than trusting earlier messages. It names the alternative (local tools for non-disruptive/headless work) and provides the full ordered relay lifecycle. No ambiguity about where this tool fits.

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