Host Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns name and description and frames it as a lookup for exact names, but it does not disclose behavior such as ordering, pagination default, or open-world incompleteness beyond what annotations already imply.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the purpose, output scope, and a concrete use case with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and every phrase contributes value.

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, one-optional-parameter list tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, why to use it, and the schema covers limit behavior, while annotations cover safety and open-world semantics.

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%, with the single 'limit' parameter fully documented including default and maximum. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but because the schema already carries the full burden, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('host groups'), and the returned fields ('name and description'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly tying it to finding a group's exact name before filtering, which is distinct from list_servicegroups and other list tools.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use this to find a group's exact name before filtering hosts or services by it.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this is the appropriate lookup.

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