host_check

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

The description declares the tool does not mutate files, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover other aspects like authorization or side effects. It is minimally adequate.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. However, it is slightly too sparse given the complexity of the tool and the number of parameters.

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 description omits details about what the validation involves, what the output schema contains, and any error conditions. For a validation tool, more context is expected, especially with an output schema 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?

The description provides no explanation for the three input parameters (host_id, max_chars, max_lines). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use parameters.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'validate' and resource 'agent host manifest', and adds a key behavioral distinction 'without mutating files'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'validate_skill' and 'host_setup'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to validate a host manifest vs. validate a skill. The description does not mention prerequisites or contexts.

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