Get host status by ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be a safe read. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it doesn't mention the return format, error handling, or what constitutes a 'status'. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description still should explain the nature of the status, but it doesn't.

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 short, but it is redundant: 'Get host status by ID' and 'Retrieves the status of a specific host by its ID' say the same thing. It is not concise in a meaningful way; it is just padded repetition. There is no structured, front-loaded information.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) but the description still fails to explain what the status represents, what the return value looks like (no output schema), or any context like time sensitivity or caching. For a tool that likely returns a status object, the agent needs more detail to interpret the result, but none is provided.

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 only parameter 'id' has no schema description (coverage 0%). The description only says 'by its ID' without explaining what ID this is (host ID? metric ID?) or what values are valid. Since schema coverage is zero, the description must compensate, but it fails to provide any semantic meaning for the 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?

The description states the verb 'Get' and resource 'host status by ID', but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title. It does not clarify what 'status' means, what kind of status (health, metrics, availability), or what the ID refers to. It adds no new information beyond the name, so it is borderline tautological.

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 the many sibling tools, such as termix_metrics_get_all_host_statuses or termix_metrics_get_host_metrics. No mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for use. The agent is left to infer that this is for a single host status, but nothing explains when to pick this over the others.

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