vibemk_get_checkmk_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 behavioral disclosure. It implies a non-destructive read ('List', 'Show') but doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior, whether it returns a summary or full objects, or what happens without a folder filter. Minimal value added beyond the basic intent.

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 concise sentence with the core intent front-loaded. The emoji adds no information but the structure is efficient and every part earns its place. Nothing 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?

A low-complexity read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but adequate for the core intent. It doesn't explain what the response contains or how folder filtering affects results, but for a simple listing tool this is a minor gap given the schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (folder, effective_attributes) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions folder filtering, which reinforces but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'List hosts' / 'Show all monitored hosts'. The scope is explicit ('all monitored hosts') and the optional folder filtering is mentioned. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_folder_hosts, get_host_details, or get_host_config, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its many host-related siblings (get_host_details, get_host_status, get_folder_hosts, get_host_config). The usage is implied as a general host listing but no exclusions or alternatives are named. Given the large sibling set, this is a notable gap.

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