host_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by stating the read-only query nature, the endpoint format (username@ip), the log directory output, and the local-launch special case. This exceeds minimal disclosure and helps the agent anticipate results without calling the tool.

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 packs multiple useful facts into a compact form: purpose, use case, output details, and a conditional edge case. Each sentence earns its place, though it could be tightened slightly by separating the log-directory detail from the endpoint query topic.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what is returned, under what conditions, for what purpose, and how to interpret the special local-launch result. No critical information is missing for an agent to call and understand this 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description appropriately does not invent parameter details and instead focuses on output behavior. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb (query) and resource (MCP host endpoint, log save directories) and explains the concrete use case (cross-machine scp transfers). It clearly identifies what the tool returns and distinguishes its purpose from the broader sibling set of shell/serial/network tools.

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?

It provides clear context for when the tool is needed (MCP on Windows, AI client on Linux) and when it behaves differently (local launches return 'local started' with no endpoint). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scp-transfer context is specific enough to guide selection without confusion.

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