host_preview

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns file differences and the service-valid planId, while keeping configuration secret fields local. This extra information helps the agent understand what to expect without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the main output first and then the key privacy behavior. There is no filler or redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, so the description covers the core return values and a key behavioral detail. However, it omits scope semantics and usage context, which leaves a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter 'scope' is not explained in the description. The default value 'user' provides a weak hint, but the agent is left without information about valid scope values or how scope affects the result.

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 ('returns') and resource ('static file differences' and the effective planId), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling preview tools, but the host-specific wording provides a reasonable distinction.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as host_apply, host_preview_restore, or other preview tools. The only implied usage is that it is a preview operation, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are stated.

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