get_host

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

With no annotations, the description must bear full burden. It clearly states that the tool returns detailed information without modifying state, which is sufficient for a read operation. It could mention that there are no side effects, but 'get' already implies idempotency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without any waste or redundancy.

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 get tool with one parameter, the description is complete. It mentions what data is returned, which is sufficient even without an output schema. The context is fully addressed.

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 100%, and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the parameter description. The main description mentions 'by UUID', but the schema already captures that. No additional semantics are needed.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'host', and the specific identifier 'by UUID'. It also lists what is returned (hardware specs, hypervisor info, resource usage), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_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 description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you have a UUID) and not to use it for listing (use list_hosts instead). However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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