wsl_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return format (JSON with ok, available, version) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like potential errors or network dependencies. This is adequate given the rich 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for return type. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the key action.

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?

For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. It could mention that it only works on Windows or if WSL is installed, but these are implied by the tool name and context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4. No issues.

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 the tool 'Report whether WSL is available on this Windows host.' The verb 'Report' and the specific resource 'WSL availability' are explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'linux_status' and other WSL tools by focusing on availability status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'linux_status' or 'wsl_list_distros'. The description does not suggest checking WSL availability before using other WSL tools, nor does it mention conditions to avoid using this tool.

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