ambari_services_gethostcomponentswithstaleconfigs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('get') without side effects, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or expected behavior when filters yield no results.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant or verbose content.

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?

The description covers the core purpose but lacks details about return values (e.g., format, fields) and behavior with filters. Given no output schema, it would benefit from specifying what data is returned. However, for a simple list-retrieval tool, it is minimally adequate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the purpose. No extra context on parameter relationships or usage is provided.

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 retrieves host components needing restart due to stale configurations. It specifies the resource (host components) and condition (stale configs), and implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'ambari_services_getserviceswithstaleconfigs' by focusing on components rather than services.

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 usage context (identifying components needing restart) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'getserviceswithstaleconfigs' or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or limitations.

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