RDS Hosts

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds valuable context by specifying the types of details returned (e.g., CPU/RAM usage, OS version) and the tool's use cases (monitoring, troubleshooting), which enhances transparency beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first lists the action and details returned, and the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (a read-only list operation with rich annotations but no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and returned details well. However, it lacks information on output format (e.g., list structure, pagination) or error handling, which would be helpful since there's no output schema, preventing a perfect score.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist, but it could have explicitly stated 'no parameters required' for clarity. Given the baseline of 4 for 0 parameters, this is a strong score with minor room for improvement.

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 specific action ('List RDS session hosts') and resource ('RDS session hosts'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ras_infra_get_agents' or 'ras_infra_get_connection_brokers' by focusing exclusively on RDS hosts. It provides a detailed list of what information is included (hostname, IP, agent status, etc.), making the purpose highly 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('to monitor host health, check capacity, or troubleshoot RDS issues'), providing clear context for its application. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, such as 'ras_infra_get_vdi_hostpools' for VDI-related monitoring, 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.