host_capability_preflight

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: filesystem stat only, no execution, no arbitrary probing, not for web/research. Also notes that PATH presence does not guarantee working auth, adding important caution.

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 focused sentences plus a one-line caution. Every sentence provides essential information. No fluff, well-organized.

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?

Output is not described explicitly, but the nature of the report is implied. Given no output schema, a hint about the format would improve completeness, but the description is sufficient for a preflight check tool.

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?

Only one optional parameter (runId) with schema description 'optional; only used to journal'. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the overall context of the tool is well explained. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reports local capability (installed CLIs) and resolved host profile. Uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like host_runtime_detect or benchmark tools.

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 states it never executes commands, never probes arbitrary binaries, and is not web/SOTA research. This helps an agent avoid misuse. Does not mention alternatives directly, but the negatives provide clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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