Get Host Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the two ways to target a host (obj_hash or obj_type) and the types of information returned (top processes, disk usage). It does not mention return format, pagination, or potential errors, so value beyond annotations is moderate.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, and the second explains requirements and provides a pointer to a sibling tool. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 read-only tool with full parameter schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is adequate. It explains the main usage modes (obj_hash vs obj_type) and what data is returned (top processes, disk usage). There is no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail, and the content described is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value by tying include_top to 'top processes' and include_disk to 'disk usage', but this is already implied by the schema. No new syntax or format details are provided, so the description does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get host-level system information: top processes (by CPU/memory) and disk usage.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('host-level system information'), and the detail about top processes and disk usage distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_overview or get_server_info.

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 explains when to use the tool (to retrieve host info) and provides a prerequisite: either provide an obj_hash or specify obj_type. It explicitly references get_system_overview for finding host agent hashes, which is useful guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or comparisons to alternative tools for the same type of data.

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