get_host_services

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output structure and filtering parameters (host_name, target). It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient behavioral context for the agent.

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 concise, front-loaded with the [READ] tag and core purpose, and organized in a clear docstring format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, read-only query), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, return fields, parameters, and example use. An output schema exists and the description mentions return fields, so completeness is high.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: host_name filters to a single host by exact name (None = all hosts), target is an optional vCenter/ESXi target name. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default information.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get host service status (running state and startup policy).' It specifies the exact fields returned (host, service key, label, running state, policy) and gives concrete examples (SSH, NTP, firewall). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_alarms or get_host_sensors.

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 usage guidance by stating 'Use to check whether SSH, NTP, or the firewall service is in the expected state.' This gives a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare directly to siblings, but the use case is well-defined.

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