list_config_host

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that it reads, such as auth requirements, response semantics, or configuration scope, so it adds little beyond 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?

The description is two short lines with no filler: the action is front-loaded and the endpoint is provided. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a trivial zero-parameter read endpoint, and the output schema plus annotations carry most of the contextual burden. The description is enough for a basic call, but it could briefly clarify what HostConfig represents and how it differs from get_config_host_by_id.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to document, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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 and resource: 'Read HostConfig.' and gives the exact HTTP endpoint, making it clear this is a read operation for host configuration. It is distinguishable from siblings like update_config_host_by_id and list_config_naming by the resource name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_config_host_by_id.

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 implies usage when you need to read the host configuration, and the GET endpoint reinforces that. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the similar get_config_host_by_id or other list_config_* alternatives.

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