run_host_smoke_check

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, or specific side effects beyond being read-only.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main action. It wastes no words, but the second part about the optional resource might be better placed elsewhere. Overall, it is appropriately concise.

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 that there are four parameters with zero schema descriptions and an output schema exists but is not described, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to configure parameters, or how to interpret results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning to parameters. However, it only vaguely references 'reading the client-smoke resource' without connecting to any specific parameter. The four parameters (task, targets, intensity, include_write_probe) remain largely unexplained.

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 runs a 'read-only host preflight', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'diagnose_environment' or 'validate_preview_request', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool specifically.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions that reading the client-smoke resource is optional, but does not explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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