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 fully covered. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and the path structure, which reinforces the read-only nature. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response format, error conditions, or whether the id must reference an existing host config.

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 extremely concise at three lines, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first line. The endpoint and parameter note are useful additions. It loses one point because the 'Args:' section is redundant with the input schema and could be omitted without losing information.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers the parameter. However, the description doesn't clarify what HostConfig is or what the output represents, which could matter for an agent deciding between this and get_config_ui_by_id or list_config_host. The output schema exists but the description doesn't reference it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'id: Path parameter' which adds the crucial information that id is a path parameter rather than a query or body parameter. However, it doesn't explain what the id refers to (e.g., host config ID) or provide any format constraints beyond the schema's integer type. The description adds some value but leaves the semantic meaning of the parameter largely to inference.

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 ('Read') and resource ('HostConfig'), which clearly identifies the operation. It also includes the HTTP endpoint, which helps disambiguate from sibling tools like get_config_downloadclient_by_id or get_config_ui_by_id. However, it doesn't explicitly explain what HostConfig represents, so an agent unfamiliar with the domain might not know what it is.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for reading host configuration settings, nor does it contrast with update_config_host_by_id or list_config_host. The only usage signal is the endpoint and the 'Read' verb, which is implicit rather than explicit.

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