get_host

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notion that the entry includes a 'lock' and 'probed facts', which hints at freshness/state, but it does not say what happens for an unknown host_id or how stale the probed facts may be.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the field list is front-loaded. It is slightly terse to the point of being a fragment, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With a dedicated output schema and read-only annotations already present, the description only needs to frame what the entry contains, which it does. Missing only edge-case behavior (nonexistent host, lock semantics), which is minor at this complexity.

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% and the single host_id parameter is documented with an example ('build-pc'), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup-behavior detail beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

Names the resource (one host's registry entry) and enumerates its contents (ssh target, shell flavor, probed facts, lock), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is a noun phrase without an explicit verb and only implicitly separates itself from list_hosts (via 'one host's'), but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as list_hosts, probe_host, or claim_host. The only routing hint ('Host id from list_hosts') lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no usage guidance from the text itself.

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