get-hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the returned fields (host names, IPs, apps, agent info, mute status) and implies a read-only operation. However, it fails to disclose pagination behavior, default sort, or any rate limits, which are important for a list operation.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences with no filler. The most critical information (purpose, use cases, output) is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 list tool with no output schema but well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and output fields. It lacks details on pagination and defaults, but these are partially covered by schema descriptions. Overall, it provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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 input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 example queries that illustrate its scope. It effectively differentiates from siblings like get-active-hosts-count or list-fleet-agents by focusing on host details and mute status.

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 concrete usage examples (e.g., 'show production hosts', 'which hosts are muted') that guide an agent on when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools.

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