search_hosts_by_os

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

The disclosure that 'Returns max 10 results by default' adds transparency beyond a generic search. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not cover permissions, result structure, or side effects. Given the bare annotations, the behavioral information is adequate but incomplete.

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 concise: three sentences with a clear purpose, a usage hint, and a constraint. Each sentence adds information without redundancy, and the most critical detail (purpose) comes first.

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 no output schema, the description could specify the return format or how to get more than 10 results (e.g., by adjusting per_page). It mentions the default limit but not how to increase it. This is a notable gap for a search tool, but the core functionality is covered.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the os_name parameter with examples and implies per_page via the default max results. The per_page parameter is not explicitly described beyond the default, but the context of pagination is hinted. This adds value over the schema but does not fully detail parameters.

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 searches hosts by operating system, with specific examples like 'Windows' and 'Oracle Linux'. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that search by other criteria (e.g., environment, fact, hostgroup).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_hosts_by_environment or list_hosts. The description provides examples of OS names but does not indicate when to prefer this tool over others or any prerequisites.

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