host_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns pending/unchanged/blocking status and diffs, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe any edge cases, limitations, or interpretation rules. No contradiction exists.

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 short and front-loaded with the main return behavior, but the second clause is awkwardly worded and ambiguous. It is not verbose, yet it sacrifices clarity in an attempt to be concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is less critical, but the sole input parameter remains completely undocumented. The agent cannot know what values to pass for scope, making the definition incomplete for correct invocation despite the tool's low complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%: the only parameter, scope, has no description and no enums. The tool description does not mention the scope parameter at all, leaving the agent without any clue about accepted values or what 'user' default means. The description entirely fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 ('返回' / returns) and the result kinds: pending, unchanged, or blocking status and differences. It clearly identifies the tool as an inspection rather than a mutation, and the mention of a separate host preview distinguishes it from the preview/apply siblings, though not by name.

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 that confirmation or applying happens through a separate host preview, which hints that this tool is for inspection rather than action. However, it does not explicitly say when to use host_inspect versus host_preview or host_apply, and the phrasing '应用通过独立的宿主预览确认' is ambiguous.

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