get_infrastructure_hosts

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states only that hosts and metrics are retrieved, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, what metrics are included, or how the hours parameter affects the response. Key behavioral traits remain unspecified.

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 concise sentence, 'Get infrastructure hosts and their metrics', with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it could include more useful context without becoming bloated.

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 read tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and the returned data type. However, it omits return structure, pagination behavior, what 'metrics' actually includes, and how this tool relates to sibling tools, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 already documents the single hours parameter fully, including its type, default, and meaning, with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, which is acceptable given how thoroughly the schema covers the only parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it retrieves infrastructure hosts and their metrics, which clearly identifies the tool's core purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_app_performance or query_nrql, so the differentiation comes more from the name than the description.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as entity_search, get_entity, or query_nrql, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would have to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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