get_lan_browser_interface_hostid

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Returns' without confirming read-only nature, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The error code list offers some insight into potential failures but does not disclose overall behavior.

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, but the error codes list is appended without structure or explanation, making it somewhat noisy. It could be more efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 annotations, zero schema coverage, and an output schema that is not described, the description is insufficient. It does not cover parameter meanings, return value details, or usage conditions, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for 'interface' and 'hostid'. The description does not explain what these parameters represent or their expected format, leaving the agent without critical context.

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 'Returns the requested LanHost properties' clearly states the action (returns) and resource (LanHost properties). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_lan_browser_interface' or 'get_lan_browser_interfaces', but the naming convention implies this tool targets a specific host by interface and hostid.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of required context. The description solely states what the tool does without any usage context.

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