Get Hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not state whether it is paginated, scoped to the caller, or whether it requires authentication beyond the user_id. No mutation or safety context is provided, leaving a list tool with no behavioral clues.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list endpoint.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with a fully covered schema and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it lacks scope and usage detail that would help an agent choose it correctly, and the 'sites' versus 'hosts' terminology is slightly incomplete for the tool's name.

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 100% and there is only one required parameter (user_id), which the schema documents as the Yandex Webmaster user ID. The description adds no extra meaning for user_id, so baseline 3 applies for a fully covered single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (list of all sites/hosts added to Yandex Webmaster). It is distinguishable from add_host and delete_host by the read verb, but the description calls the resource 'sites' while the sibling list uses 'host', which may confuse agents looking for a host list rather than a site list.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like get_host_info or get_summary. The description is a one-line statement with no routing context.

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