Detect Remote OS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotence. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the purpose; it does not contradict annotations but also does not enrich them.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words, though it could include slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 existence of an output schema and simple input, the description suffices for basic understanding. However, 'environment information' is vague, and the tool could benefit from specifying what OS and environment details are returned (e.g., kernel version, distro). The description is adequate but not rich.

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 only parameter 'sessionId' has a schema description matching the tool's purpose. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 tool name 'os_detect' and title 'Detect Remote OS' clearly indicate the purpose. The description 'Detects operating system and environment information' directly states the action and result, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle file operations, process execution, or SSH session management.

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 a general statement of what the tool does but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Context implies using after establishing an SSH session, but no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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