Inspect host

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the inspection covers (OS, runtimes, services, sudo) and explicitly states 'Makes no changes,' reinforcing the non-destructive nature. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear expectation of the report content.

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 a single, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the action and scope, lists the key outputs, and ends with a clear non-mutating statement. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 no-parameter, read-only inspection tool with an output schema (per context signals), the description is complete. It states what the tool reports and confirms it makes no changes. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly. The sibling tools are all about provisioning, deployment, or service status, so this tool's role is clearly positioned.

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 has zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description does not attempt to explain any schema fields, which 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 clearly states the verb 'inspect' and the resource 'configured Ubuntu host', and specifies the exact outputs: OS, runtime commands, service states, and sudo availability. This distinguishes it from siblings like service_status, which focuses on services, and plan_stack/provision_stack which are about provisioning. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies this is a pre-flight inspection tool for checking host readiness, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. However, given it takes no parameters and is a read-only inspection, the usage context is fairly obvious. It could benefit from a hint like 'Use before provisioning or deployment,' but the intent is clear.

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