host_net_check

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that checks run FROM the hosts and in parallel, and that tls uses TLS1.3 + h2, which is real added context. However it omits permission requirements, timeouts, and whether checks are safe/read-only, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: capability first, then use cases. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the parenthetical 'what a REALITY dest needs' is jargon that may not parse for a general agent.

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?

For a diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what is run but says nothing about the return format, timeouts, or how results are surfaced, which an agent may need to interpret output. Usage is well covered, but the mechanics of the result are left implicit.

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 75% and the schema already documents `to`, `sni`, and `target` in detail, with `check` constrained by an enum. The description adds meaning by implying what the `check` values do (tcp/tls/http/dns/ping/trace), but does not elaborate on `to`, `sni`, or `target` semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: network checks run FROM hosts, and enumerates the check types (tcp, tls, http, dns, ping, trace). An agent can tell it is a remote diagnostic tool rather than a firewall/port/config tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from (e.g. host_ports, host_inspect), so it lands just short of 5.

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?

Three concrete use cases are given: pick/verify a REALITY dest, check a node reaches the panel, and detect if a destination is filtered from a location. That is clear context, though it does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions to route against sibling tools.

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