host_status_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the severity threshold (Warning+), that disabled-trigger/host items are filtered out, and that the payload is self-contained JSON. It stops short of describing auth or rate-limit behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Purpose and contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, with usage and the sibling replacement rationale following. Each sentence carries weight, though the opening enumeration is dense enough that it could be marginally tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the aggregation scope, filter semantics, and usage framing an agent needs to call it correctly in one shot.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents host, server, host_id, and the nuanced raw_json flag (policy gating, prompt-injection warning). The description adds nothing parameter-specific and instead describes output composition, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verb (status get) and resource (host) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: identity, interfaces, monitored-state, active problems, and last 8 item values. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools it replaces (host_get, hostinterface_get, problem_get, item_get), so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

It names the exact triggering utterances ('what is the status of <hostname>?' / 'what is wrong on <hostname>?') and states the condition that selects it over the alternative multi-tool chain. The routing logic is explicit rather than inferred.

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