prepare_host_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a behavioral nuance: it returns a 'canonical plan' and requires no model credentials, but it does not disclose what the plan contains or any effects on the host harness. The added value is modest given 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and a key constraint ('accepts no model credentials'). Every word contributes, with no redundant or promotional language, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema that can explain return values, the description is too sparse for a tool with 7 parameters and many siblings. It fails to explain what the canonical plan is, how parameters affect it, or how this tool relates to other preparation or execution tools. The agent would struggle to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its 7 parameters, and the description does not mention any of them (symbol, analysts, as_of_date, etc.). The single note about 'no model credentials' does not clarify the parameters or their purpose, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance for invocation.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('canonical plan for the active host harness'), making the core purpose clear. It also notes 'accepts no model credentials,' which hints at its role in preparation. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_host_run' or 'prepare_fixture'.

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 provides context by indicating the tool operates on the 'active host harness' and requires no model credentials, suggesting it is a preparation step rather than a runtime action. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, missing the opportunity to name exclusion conditions.

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