get_config_host_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and path parameter context, but does not describe return behavior, error cases, or performance characteristics. With annotations covering the core behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short and front-loaded with 'Read HostConfig.' The HTTP endpoint and Args line follow. There is no wasted content, though the endpoint duplication with the schema could be seen as minor redundancy.

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-by-id tool with a single required parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not clarify what a HostConfig is, what the returned output looks like (though an output schema exists), or how the id is used beyond being a path parameter. The sibling list shows many similar tools, so some context about the resource would help.

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 has only one parameter 'id' with type integer, and the description says 'Args: id: Path parameter.' This adds a small amount of meaning—it clarifies that id is a path parameter—but the schema already documents the parameter name and type. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's mention of id is somewhat helpful, but it doesn't explain what the id represents or how to obtain it.

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 'Read HostConfig' clearly identifies the operation (read) and the resource (HostConfig), but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_config_development_by_id or get_config_downloadclient_by_id. The sibling list has many similar 'get_config_*_by_id' tools, so the description is minimally clear but lacks differentiation.

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 provides no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states 'Read HostConfig' and the HTTP endpoint. There is no mention of when to prefer this over other get_config_*_by_id tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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