asset_list_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only lists parameters and their meanings, but does not disclose expected behavior such as pagination, ordering, result format, or any side effects. It does not even state that this is a read-only operation. The parameter list is not a substitute for behavioral context.

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 highly concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence or fragment serves a clear role. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., a full sentence for each parameter), but it avoids fluff and gets to the point efficiently.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description provides essential parameter semantics but lacks information about return values, pagination behavior, or usage context. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps regarding what the response looks like and when to use it, which would require the agent to infer or experiment.

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 schema descriptions are completely absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It defines each parameter: status with allowed values, min_scan_count as a minimum, and limit as max results. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema properties. However, it does not detail value formats, case sensitivity, or other nuances, so it is good but not perfect.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'List all known hosts.' It distinguishes from siblings like asset_get_host (single host) and asset_list_services (services), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from asset_search which could also list hosts. Purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as asset_search or asset_get_host. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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