fleet_sweep

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It details concurrency (up to 10 at a time), list cap (50), default behavior, required conditions for port, and return format including error cases. Could add timeout specifics or rate limits, but overall transparent.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then breaks down args and returns in a clear structure. A bit verbose on return details but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly tighter but still well-organized.

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 no annotations, zero schema coverage, and sibling context, the description covers inputs, behavior, constraints, and output format completely. It enables an agent to use the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully explains all three parameters: hosts (cap, URL handling), check (options and defaults), port (conditionality). Adds meaning beyond the schema's native types.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Run one diagnostic check across a whole fleet of hosts, concurrently.' It clearly states the tool's capability and provides a signature question it answers, distinguishing it from sibling single-host tools like ping_host or tcp_port_check.

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 implies usage through the signature question and concurrency indication, but does not explicitly say when to use this over siblings. It lacks 'when-not' or alternative recommendations, e.g., if only one host, use ping_host instead. So only implied usage guidance.

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