host_get

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

The description includes a [READ] prefix indicating non-destructive behavior, and gives a sense of returned fields. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not detail potential errors, authorization needs, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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, using a single sentence for purpose and a clear 'Args' section for parameters. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential: purpose, parameter meanings, and return concept. It could mention return type or error cases, but is mostly 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 description coverage, the description adds clear semantics: host_id is a UUID and refers to host_list, target is a config name with a default. This goes beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 it retrieves details for a single host by UUID, listing specific fields (version, build, memory, VMs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like host_list (list all hosts) and vm_get (different resource).

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 usage when needing a single host's details, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like host_list or when not to use. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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