aap_list_hosts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by stating that the tool supports pagination and filter options, and by detailing the return fields (id, name, inventory, enabled, variables). This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not mention any specific permissions or rate-limit behavior, which is acceptable for a read-only list operation.

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 and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, avoiding redundancy with the schema or annotations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence.

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-only list tool with rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, the operation, the parameter purpose, and the return structure. No additional behavioral or prerequisite information is necessary for this straightforward use case.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a high-level summary: 'params (ListHostsInput): Pagination and filter options,' which adds context beyond the raw schema. However, it does not detail individual parameters or their filters; it relies on the schema's own descriptions for some fields (search, enabled, inventory_id). This is a modest contribution, not full compensation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List hosts in an AAP inventory.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_host, update_host, and delete_host, and aligns with the tool name. It also specifies the return content (id, name, inventory, enabled, variables), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context that this tool lists hosts within an inventory, implicitly indicating when to use it (when a host listing is needed). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no conflicting sibling tools exist for listing hosts, so the context is sufficient. A minor deduction for not explicitly stating scenarios like 'use when you need to see hosts in an inventory'.

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