List hosts

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: that certain fields are canonical remote host_ids and name is display-only. This helps the agent correctly use the returned data and avoids misinterpreting display names as IDs. No contradictions with 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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, and each clause adds value. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides essential data-interpretation guidance. It earns a top score for efficiency.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it returns and how to interpret key fields. It does not mention pagination or filtering, but those are likely unnecessary for a zero-parameter list tool. The description adequately covers the essential 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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (schema specifies no properties). Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

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's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('host selection records'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other entity types. The phrase 'host selection records' is slightly jargon-heavy, but it aligns with the tool name and context.

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 implies usage through the verb 'Return' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It does offer guidance on how to interpret returned fields ('Use non-self host id fields as canonical remote host_ids values; name is display-only'), which supports correct use after selection.

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