wsl_create_temp

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: 'downloads tiny Alpine minirootfs', 'imports it', 'leaving existing distros untouched'. No contradiction; could mention network/disk usage but sufficient with 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?

Description is concise (4-5 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently covers key behaviors, alternatives, and return format. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers main behavior, alternatives, companion tools, and return format (output schema). Missing error cases and prerequisites (e.g., WSL installed), but openWorldHint reduces expectation. Complete for typical use.

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?

Input schema has full descriptions per parameter. Description lists parameters but adds little beyond schema, except noting 'optional' and 'default Alpine' for rootfs_url. Schema coverage is high, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'provision' with the resource 'throwaway WSL distro'. It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like wsl_run and wsl_destroy, and explains default behavior vs alternatives (clone_from, base_tar).

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 when to use this tool ('to run Linux software', 'throwaway'), provides companion tools (wsl_run, wsl_destroy), and describes alternatives (clone_from, base_tar) with clear context about default Alpine download.

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