bootstrap_builder_host

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: dry-run mode, idempotence on confirm, audit logging, and lifecycle timing. Lacks details on error handling or state if already installed, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with the main action; no wasted words. Efficiently conveys necessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params) and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, preconditions, and safety (dry-run, idempotence). Leaves room for parameter format details but is largely complete.

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 explains the 'confirm' parameter (dry-run vs run) and implies 'builder' identifies the host. However, does not specify format or validation for 'builder' (e.g., hostname vs IP). Schema has 0% coverage, so description partly compensates but leaves ambiguity.

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 verb ('Install') and resource ('build toolchain + deps on a builder host') and distinguishes from siblings like 'provision' or 'upgrade' which handle higher-level operations.

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?

Provides clear guidance: dry-run by default, confirm=true to run idempotently, records to audit log, and run once per builder before first upgrade/provision. Does not explicitly exclude alternative tools but context is sufficient.

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