hosts_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Add entries' without disclosing whether entries are appended, whether duplicates are replaced, permission requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for a system-modifying tool.

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, which is efficient. However, it lacks any structured breakdown (e.g., parameter usage, examples) and feels more like an under-specification than intentional brevity.

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 tool that modifies system network configuration, the description provides only surface-level purpose. With no output schema, no annotations, and no param details, the agent cannot know execution context, potential risks, or expected results. Minimal viable at best.

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 has 0% description coverage; neither 'ip' nor 'hostnames' is explained. The description does not compensate, as it merely mentions 'entries' without specifying formats, delimiters, or examples. Agent is left with no semantic understanding of the parameters.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('/etc/hosts'), clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the 'add' action, but does not explicitly compare to hosts_remove/hosts_list/hosts_clear.

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 alternatives (e.g., hosts_remove, hosts_clear). There are no prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions stated. Only the implied context of adding entries to /etc/hosts.

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