get_host

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It clearly indicates a read operation that returns detailed host information, but it does not describe error behavior, authentication requirements, or the specific fields returned.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and input with no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple one-parameter get operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and input. It could be more specific about the returned 'detailed information', but an agent can invoke it correctly with the FQDN alone.

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 already covers the only parameter (fqdn) with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds 'FreeIPA-enrolled host' context, but it does not meaningfully expand on the parameter's semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('detailed information about a specific FreeIPA-enrolled host'), and the key identifier ('by its FQDN'). This distinguishes it from sibling list_hosts, which handles enumerating hosts.

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 phrase 'specific host' implies this tool is for retrieving one host's details rather than listing hosts, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_hosts or state when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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