htb_hosts_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose key traits: read-style lookup, return of bare values only (not formatted output), and the non-obvious fact that multiple patterns NARROW rather than widen. It omits error/empty-match behavior and result ordering.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place, with the core action and output shape front-loaded before the matching semantics and the use case.

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 3-param, 100%-covered, annotation-free read tool with no output schema, this covers purpose, output shape, and the tricky matching semantics. Only the `index` parameter's effect on results and empty-result behavior go unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks: that `patterns` matches against ip/tag/hostname and that multiple patterns are conjunctive, plus that `field` defaults to 'ip'. The `index` parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('look up managed entries ... return just their bare values') and states the output shape, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling htb_hosts_show. It never names that contrast explicitly, so an agent must infer it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('resolve a box name to its IP before scanning') plus the AND-narrowing rule. It offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative among htb_hosts_show / htb_hosts_list-style siblings.

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