dsh_host_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which aligns with the 'Report' verb. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the exact subject of the report, but does not disclose any additional traits such as availability, latency, or what 'connect-only bridge state' entails beyond the surface meaning.

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 action ('Report') and clearly identifies the object. No filler words or redundant information are present, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, rich annotations, no output schema), the description is sufficient to convey what the tool does. It names the specific status areas ('connect-only bridge state' and 'current official capabilities') which helps set context, though it does not elaborate on why this information matters or how it might be used.

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, and the input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none.

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 the specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource being reported: 'connect-only bridge state' and 'current official DSH Web Host capabilities.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dsh_status, which likely reports general status, and dsh_list, which lists items.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be preferable. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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