yd_webmaster_hosts_get

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behaviors. It correctly states a non-destructive read operation listing both verified and unverified hosts. However, it does not mention pagination, response structure, or whether the list is complete, which are relevant for a list tool with no output schema.

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 a single, short sentence (10 words) that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. It lacks details about the returned data format or whether the list is limited. A slightly more informative description (e.g., 'Returns a list of host objects with basic info') would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate, as no additional param info is required.

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 uses the verb 'list' and specific resource 'hosts', clearly stating it returns all verified and unverified hosts for the user. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yd_webmaster_host_get (likely single host retrieval) and yd_webmaster_host_add (creation).

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 for obtaining a full list of hosts, contrasting with single-host tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over yd_webmaster_host_get or exclude cases where filtering is needed. The context from sibling names partially compensates.

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