host_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the operation is 'read-only'. However it says nothing about permissions, failure behavior, or how the host parameter affects reach (local vs remote), leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resources inspected, with zero padding. Nothing could be removed without losing content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the tool is simple. But the sole input parameter is undocumented and no usage context is given, so the definition is adequate rather than complete.

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?

There is one parameter ('host') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only references a 'local lab host' default. It does not explain what values the host parameter accepts or that it selects a non-local target, so the single parameter is largely uninterpretable from the definition.

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 (Return) and concrete resources (disk, memory, failed-systemd-unit status) scoped to 'the local lab host'. The host-level scope implicitly separates it from siblings like k8s_pod_status and slow_probe, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 scope phrase 'for the local lab host' implies the diagnostic context in which to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing against the sibling tools. An agent must infer the usage scenario.

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