hosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It lists actions but does not explain side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens when muting/unmuting. For a tool with destructive actions (mute), more behavioral context is needed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and actions, with no filler. Every word contributes value.

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 (10 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values for each action, pagination details for 'list', or the effect of mute/unmute. More details are needed for an AI to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates actions. Thus, no additional credit is warranted.

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-resource combination ('Manage Datadog infrastructure hosts') and enumerates specific actions (list, totals, mute, unmute) with brief explanations. It also provides use cases, effectively distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like monitors or events.

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 gives explicit use cases ('infrastructure inventory, host health, silencing noisy hosts during maintenance'), providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would improve it.

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