opspilot_describe_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Describe' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is helpful. However, it does not detail what happens for unknown hosts, whether the operation is purely local, or any other behavioral nuances. It goes beyond a tautology but lacks rich context.

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 that front-loads the verb and clearly enumerates the three types of information provided. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is ideal in length and structure.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description provides the key return topics (services, log path roots, connection status), which is essential. However, it omits expected response format, error behavior, or any relation to sibling tools. Given the low complexity, this is a minimally complete description but not particularly informative.

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 one parameter, host_alias, but provides no description, and overall schema coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, relying entirely on the parameter name. While 'host_alias' is self-explanatory, the description fails to add any semantic guidance, such as how to obtain valid aliases or whether it refers to registered host names.

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 clearly states what the tool does with a specific verb ('Describe') and enumerates the resource types covered (registered services, log path roots, connection attachment status). It is specific enough to distinguish from broader tools like 'status' or 'list_hosts', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named 'inspect_host'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspect_host' or 'status'. While the purpose is clear, there are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions provided, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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