infomaniak_list_hostings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope (given organization, classic + Node.js) but does not disclose return format, pagination, or auth details. It adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and includes a useful prerequisite without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, presence of an output schema, and strong annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description is complete: it names the resource types, the required scope (organization), and the prerequisite discovery step. No significant information gap remains.

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 coverage is 50%: account_id has a full description, while include_nodejs has only type and default. The description's 'classic + Node.js' partially clarifies include_nodejs's purpose, but does not explicitly state that setting it to false excludes Node.js. The description compensates somewhat but does not fully carry the parameter-semantics burden.

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 the tool lists web hostings (classic + Node.js) for a given Infomaniak organization, using a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('web hostings'). It distinguishes from siblings like infomaniak_list_sites and infomaniak_list_nodejs_apps by explicitly scoping to hostings and including both classic and Node.js types.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Use infomaniak_list_organizations first to discover account IDs.' This gives explicit when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternative listing tools, stopping short of a 5.

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