Fleet: hosts, apps and context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only' restates it. It does add value beyond annotations by describing the shape of the response (names, addresses, paths, status) and the catalogue-availability caveat, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, and the core resource scope is front-loaded before the routing and return-shape notes. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned entity fields. Combined with the read-only annotation and the full action documentation in the schema, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the action enum already documents the required parameter per action in full detail. The description's 'pass a name to host_info/app_info' merely repeats what the schema states, adding no new syntax or constraint, so 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 (inspect) and enumerates the exact resources covered: SSH hosts, apps, recent errors/context, and database connections. This makes it trivially distinguishable from navig_knowledge, navig_runtime, and the other catalogue siblings, which have wholly different resources.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use navig_knowledge for documentation and navig_runtime for missions, and flags that navig_run_command only exists in the full catalogue. That is explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance naming concrete alternatives.

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