Get Systems Affected by Advisor Recommendation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating the tool is safe. The description does not add behavioral details beyond that, such as output structure or any side effects, but it does not contradict 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 concise, using two sentences and a call example. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides an illustrative example without unnecessary text.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema available, the description covers the core functionality and provides an example. It does not describe the output structure, but the output schema presumably does. It could better differentiate from sibling tools but is otherwise complete.

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 already provides a clear description of the 'rule_id' parameter. The description adds value with a concrete call example showing the correct format, reinforcing the schema information.

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 tool gets all RHEL systems affected by a specific Advisor Recommendation, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like advisor__get_active_rules and advisor__get_hosts_details_for_rule by focusing on affected systems and scope of impact.

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 explains when to use the tool (to understand impact scope) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like advisor__get_hosts_details_for_rule, which might provide more details. The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusionary context.

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