RDS Host Pools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by explaining that the tool lists 'membership and configuration' for 'load balancing and resource allocation,' providing context on what information is retrieved, which enhances transparency beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by explanatory context and usage examples. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is efficient, making it easy to understand quickly with zero waste.

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 the tool's complexity (read-only list operation with no parameters) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is mostly complete. It explains what is listed and why, but lacks details on output format or pagination, and there is no output schema, leaving a minor gap in full context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates well for the lack of parameters by adding semantic context about what the tool lists.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('RDS host pool membership and configuration'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ras_infra_get_rds_hosts' (individual hosts) and 'ras_infra_get_vdi_hostpools' (VDI pools), making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to review pool composition, check host assignments, or verify pool settings'), giving practical scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'ras_infra_get_rds_hosts' for individual host details, which prevents a perfect score.

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