host_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly labels the tool as [READ], indicating non-destructive behavior. However, it does not elaborate on other behavioral traits like idempotency or performance impact.

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 extremely concise with no fluff. The [READ] marker upfront sets expectation, and each sentence provides essential information. Ideal length for a simple get tool.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description gives a good sense of return values (version, build, memory, VMs). It could mention error handling for invalid UUIDs, but for a basic retrieval tool, it is adequately complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant value: it explains host_id as 'Host uuid (see host_list)' and target as an optional Xen Orchestra target name with default behavior. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 reads details for one host by UUID, listing specific attributes like version, build, memory, VMs. This distinguishes it from host_list, which presumably lists all hosts.

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 using host_list first to get host_id, but does not explicitly state when to use host_get versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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