get-hosts

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the output (host names, IPs, apps, etc.) and implies a read operation with 'List'. However, it does not mention if permissions are needed, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe (non-destructive). A brief statement of 'read-only' would improve transparency.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, usage examples, and output summary. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 description is adequate given the complexity: 8 optional parameters, no output schema. It explains the tool's purpose and typical use cases. However, it does not detail pagination behavior (start/count) or default sorting, though the schema covers these. The return values are mentioned. Almost complete for a list tool.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context ('show production hosts') but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists infrastructure hosts from Datadog, with specific use cases like 'show production hosts' and 'hosts running agent version X'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the scope (infrastructure hosts) and return fields.

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 provides explicit use cases ('Use for ...') which help an agent decide when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the examples are clear enough for common scenarios.

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