Show the WSL distro

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the reported guard policy gates what other tools accept, and that networking mode governs port semantics (mirrored mode blocks ports held by Windows; in-distro listings see only the local namespace). It does not cover auth, limits, or refresh behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the 'call this first' instruction before the supporting detail. The final sentence on networking mode is a fairly deep edge case, but it is defensible context for port reasoning; otherwise no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return surface — and it does so explicitly (distro, user, guard policy, running/stopped, WSL version, networking mode, systemd PID 1). Combined with the first-call guidance and cross-tool policy dependency, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly treats this as a no-argument call and spends its words on output meaning instead.

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+resource ('Show the WSL distro and user this server runs commands in') and enumerates exactly what is reported: guard policy, running/stopped state, WSL version, networking mode, systemd status. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the operational siblings (wsl_exec, wsl_read_file, wsl_list_dir) without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit ordering guidance ('Call this first'), states why ('it is the only reachable distro'), and explains its downstream effect ('its policy decides what the other tools will accept'). There is no competing alternative to route to, and the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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