host_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool raises an 'unsupported' error for agents lacking the MIB, which is critical behavioral insight. It does not detail side effects or authentication, but for a read-only query, the disclosure is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key behavioral note. No extraneous words; every part earns its place.

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 single parameter and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the returned data categories and an error condition. It could be slightly improved by noting return format, but overall it provides necessary 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 schema has 0% description coverage and only a single 'host' parameter. The description does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints, leaving the agent with no additional guidance beyond the schema's bare type.

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 explicitly states it provides a summary of HOST-RESOURCES-MIB data, listing specific metrics (CPU, memory, uptime, process count, storage table). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like system_info by referencing a specific MIB and detailing the error case for unsupported agents.

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 mentions a failure mode for uncooperative devices (bare switches), giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like system_info or interfaces_list, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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