get_host_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does not disclose that the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any potential side effects. It only states that it retrieves detailed information.

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 short and front-loaded, with a clear goal in the first sentence. The args section is concise. However, the structure could be improved by omitting the 'Args:' block if integrated into the description.

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 description is minimal given the tool's complexity (2 required parameters, output schema exists). It does not mention what kind of detailed information (e.g., hardware, network) is returned, which would help the agent decide if this is the correct tool.

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 lists the parameters and provides an example value (e.g., 'vcenter.domain.local') for hostname, adding some semantic meaning. However, it does not explain the format or constraints beyond the type.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about an ESXi host.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (detailed information about an ESXi host), and is distinct from siblings like get_vm_details or list_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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_hosts (which lists all hosts) or get_datacenter_details. It implies that both hostname and host_id are required, but lacks guidance on when to choose this over siblings.

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