host_swap_instructions

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns API key storage locations, base_url and model_id (or recommended), and per-app search paths for specific apps on multiple OS. It explains how the host can use this info, providing complete transparency about what the tool does and its output.

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 well-structured: first line states purpose, then 'Returns:' lists outputs, then 'Args:' details parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, fitting the tool's complexity into a compact, readable format.

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 complexity (multiple outputs, OS-specific paths, parameter interactions), the description covers all necessary information. The output schema exists but description already explains return values, making it complete for agent usage.

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 the description compensates fully: it explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, and behavior (e.g., 'Omit to get a recommended model at min_tier'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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's purpose: 'Tell the host agent where to search the machine to swap in a model-radar model.' It specifies the verb ('tell'), the resource ('model-radar model'), and scope (search locations, API keys, base_url, model_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_models or configure_key.

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 explains when to use the tool and how to use arguments: omit model_id for a recommended model, use provider to limit, and min_tier default. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear for this specialized tool.

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