Inspect Host Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds some context by specifying 'Linux host' and 'infra-lens collection,' but it does not disclose what happens on unsupported hosts or any additional behavior beyond 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 one short sentence, front-loaded, with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 simple purpose and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and an explanation of what 'supports' means in practice, leaving some gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 description says nothing about the 'connection' parameter. The schema has detailed nested descriptions for host, username, etc., but the top-level parameter lacks a description and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not compensate by explaining that the parameter is an SSH connection or how to provide it.

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 clearly states the tool checks whether a Linux host supports infra-lens collection, using a specific verb 'check' and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like analyze_server or snapshot, but the purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without indicating a recommended context or prerequisites.

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