Host Health

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it reports explanatory factors like down parents, downtime, and acknowledgements, and it explains the no-match behavior. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the core value proposition and followed by concrete example queries. Every clause adds information and there is no redundant or promotional filler.

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 single-host health tool, the description covers the key user intents, the single-host constraint, and the unknown-host behavior. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. The context signals and schema fill the remaining details.

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%, with both parameters fully described in the schema. The description adds usage context through examples but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's definitions for hostname and hours. This meets the baseline for fully documented 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?

The description states exactly what the tool does: it provides a single host's state, likely causes of problems, dependent hosts, services by state, and recent changes. The 'one host' scope clearly distinguishes it from broader estate-wide tools, and the example queries make its purpose immediately recognizable.

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?

Explicit use cases are given: 'how is web01', 'why is web01 down', 'what does switch01 take down with it'. It also notes there is no estate-wide form and that unknown hostnames are answered with tool suggestions. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the single-host framing and examples provide clear context.

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