Host Templates

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive; the description adds the behavioral context that this is a name-based list/search operation and that container acceptance is handled by a separate tool. No side effects or hidden failure modes are suggested, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences: definition, parameter usage, and related-tool pointer. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no 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 simple, zero-required-parameter listing tool with a full input schema and output schema, the description covers the domain, the filtering mechanism, and the relevant alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so limit and name_filter are already fully documented. The description restates the substring-narrowing behavior of name_filter but adds no new semantic layer beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Find host templates (reusable check/notification configurations for hosts) by name,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_servicetemplates and from container-specific template lookups. The parenthetical adds domain context without ambiguity.

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?

It advises using name_filter with a substring to narrow results and points to get_allowed_elements_for_container when a specific container's accepted templates are needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus list_servicetemplates, but the host-template framing makes the context clear.

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