host_capability_preflight

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: filesystem stat only, no command execution, no arbitrary binary probing, not web/SOTA research, and caveat about auth. This is comprehensive and honest.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences. First sentence states purpose, second sets boundaries, third provides important limitation. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity, no output schema, and full parameter coverage by schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, constraints, and caveats, leaving no obvious gaps for an AI agent to misuse the 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?

The only parameter (runId) is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage; the description adds no further meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents it.

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 it provides a local capability report on installed frontier-agent CLIs and host profile, using specific verb 'report' and resource 'local capability'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like host_runtime_detect by focusing on CLI presence and host resolution without execution.

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 description implies safe usage ('NEVER executes a command') but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or naming of alternatives. It does not contrast with sibling tools like host_runtime_detect or other inspection tools.

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