datadog_hosts_list

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

With zero annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, details auto-pagination behavior (limit 0 wraps to 10000), and specifies output format (YAML). This adds significant value beyond the schema, though it could mention potential error handling or rate limits.

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—two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence covers purpose and parameters, the second adds safety (read-only), CLI reference, and output format. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by declaring the output is YAML. It covers key behavioral aspects (read-only, pagination, filter format) for a simple list tool. However, it does not describe the exact fields in the YAML output (e.g., host name, tags), which could be helpful for parsing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds examples for `filter` and `from`, and clarifies the auto-pagination behavior for `limit`. These augment the schema descriptions but are not strictly necessary, keeping the score at the baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Datadog reporting hosts'), and specifies optional narrowing by filter and cutoff. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling Datadog tools like `datadog_dashboard_list` or `datadog_events_list`, which operate on different resources.

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 context on when to use the tool (listing hosts with optional filters), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. While it mentions being read-only and mirrors a CLI command, it does not directly address exclusion scenarios or sibling tool differentiation.

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