get_all_host_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does add the scoping detail 'for the authenticated user', and 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential caveats, return format details, or any side effects. For a simple read tool this seems adequate but not rich.

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 clear sentence that conveys the essential information without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough context to understand its purpose and scope. It could be slightly more explicit about the expected return structure, but the description of 'online/offline status' is sufficient for this simple tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to explain, the description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which matches the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the online/offline status of all hosts for the authenticated user.' It uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource ('online/offline status of all hosts'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_host_status (singular) and list_ssh_hosts (listing hosts rather than status).

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 this tool is for retrieving statuses for all hosts at once, and the mention of 'authenticated user' provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_host_status or list_ssh_hosts, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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