thruk_list_hosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'List monitored hosts' without mentioning pagination, filtering capabilities, or the fact that results are returned in JSON. The schema implies complex filtering and pagination, but the description adds no transparency beyond the bare minimum.

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 overly terse (one sentence) for a tool with 6 parameters and complex filtering. It lacks structure and front-loads no key information. While concise, it is under-specified and fails to earn its brevity by omitting critical context.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested filter objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to mention pagination, sorting, field selection, backend targeting, or the rich filtering capabilities that are documented in the schema. The agent is left without a high-level summary of the tool's capabilities.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions), which is high. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3, and the description does not improve or hinder parameter understanding.

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 'List monitored hosts' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (monitored hosts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like thruk_list_services or thruk_acknowledge. However, it does not differentiate from similar list tools like thruk_list_hostgroups or thruk_list_services, which could be confused without additional context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many list operations (e.g., thruk_list_services, thruk_list_alerts) but the description offers no context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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