Get all host statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds the user-scoping detail ('for the authenticated user'), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist; however, the description does not disclose return format or pagination, but given the annotations, the added value is reasonable.

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 exactly two short sentences: 'Get all host statuses. Retrieves the status of all hosts for the authenticated user.' It is front-loaded with the core action and provides the essential scoping. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose and the user scope. The only gap is the lack of an output schema, so the agent does not know the exact return structure, but for a simple 'get all statuses' this is acceptable. The description could mention that it returns a list of hosts with statuses, but it is not necessary given the simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. Since there are no parameters, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4, and the description adds no extra burden. It correctly implies that no arguments are required.

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 action ('Get all host statuses') and the resource (all hosts), and adds the scoping 'for the authenticated user,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like termix_metrics_get_host_status_id (which targets a single host) and termix_metrics_get_host_metrics (which retrieves metrics rather than statuses). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used when a global overview of host statuses is needed, nor does it contrast with get_host_status_id for per-host queries. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without any exclusions or alternative routing.

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