host_info__get_host_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the return structure (system and dev_environments sections), contents of each, and tool count (~35). It also explains parameter defaults and semantics. It does not mention potential side effects (likely none) or error behavior, but otherwise provides substantial transparency.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, @remarks, and @param sections. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. It front-loads the key purpose and uses a consistent JSDoc style that makes scanning easy. Despite length, it remains concise and focused.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, return sections, parameter behaviors, and ideal invocation context. Since there is no output schema or annotations, it adequately substitutes for them. It does not provide a sample output or exhaustive list of the ~35 tools, but for a retrieval/inspection tool, the level of detail is sufficient. Minor room for improvement in describing return types or edge cases.

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 parameters have no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates with @param documentation for all four parameters. It explains meanings, defaults, format examples ('python3,node,rustc'), and the effect of empty filter_tools. This exceeds baseline by making every parameter self-explanatory.

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 opens with 'Collect host system context for code development tasks in a single call,' which clearly states the action, resource, and purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like host_info__healthz by focusing on system context rather than health checks. The 'Ideal as a first call' note further articulates its role.

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 explicit guidance on when to use it ('before writing or running code on the host'), but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Since sibling tools are mostly unrelated, this is not a major gap, but it falls short of the 'explicit when-not/alternatives' level.

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