remote_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful context by disclosing that the response exposes an operator-imposed policy (host allowlist, env-var read scope, confined working directory) that constrains what other tools in the family can do — information not present in the annotations.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the two main things returned (server version, security policy), followed by a compact colon-separated enumeration. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to document return shape, and it nonetheless summarizes the returned fields. The only minor gap is that it does not say the call is cheap/safe to make freely or indicate when in a workflow it should be consulted.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no argument semantics to explain and the baseline applies. The description correctly spends no words on arguments and instead characterizes the output content.

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 concrete verb ('Show') and a concrete resource ('server version and the operator's security policy'), then enumerates the exact facts returned: allowed hosts, ad-hoc connection allowance, *_env variable read scope, and the sandbox directory. That enumeration makes it unmistakable against execution-oriented siblings like remote_execute or remote_test.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative, but usage is strongly implied: this is the tool to consult before attempting ad-hoc connections, reads of *_env variables, or file/script operations that a restrictive policy could block. The guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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