explain_host_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds specific behavioral context by listing the data categories returned (resource usage, running services, detected issues), which helps set expectations beyond the schema. This is meaningful extra context, though it does not address pagination or output structure (mitigated by the output schema).

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds three specific data categories. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

With one well-documented parameter, an output schema present, and annotations indicating a safe read operation, the description is sufficient. It clearly conveys the tool's scope and output categories, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% for the single parameter, including an example value. The description's phrase 'for a specific host' reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides full documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'detailed health data for a specific host,' enumerating resource usage, services, and issues. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_host_info' (basic info) and 'explain_service_health' (service-level focus).

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 implies use for a specific host's health details, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'get_host_info' or 'explain_service_health.' There is no exclusionary guidance, so the agent must infer context from the tool name and sibling set.

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