Validate Computer-Use Host

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds the material preconditions (verified host runtime, explicit capability evidence) and disclaims side effects an agent might otherwise assume (no screen observation, no input control, no local driver). What it does not disclose is what a successful validation produces or whether the gateway records anything.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope negation; nothing is padded. Slightly abstract phrasing ('at the hosted gateway') costs a little precision but does not waste space.

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 two-parameter nested-object tool with no output schema, the description should say what a validation call returns or what state it leaves behind, especially since readOnlyHint=false implies possible side effects. Preconditions are covered, but the outcome half is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters (host report, optional action request) are already documented in the schema, including the bee.computer.v1 protocol and approval evidence. The description adds no syntax, format, or field-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (Bee computer-use host capability report plus optional governed action request) at the hosted gateway. The negative clause ('does not observe a screen, control input, automate a device, or create a local driver') sharpens what the tool is NOT, which is valuable given how easily a computer-use tool is confused with device automation, though no sibling is named.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation: the report must be real, the request governed, and execution must happen in a verified host runtime with explicit capability evidence. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to call it, so it sits at 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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