get_host_services

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the return envelope structure, row fields, and the guarantee that truncated is always False because all matching hosts are enumerated. It also states the read-only boundary explicitly, adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 compact and dense, with the core purpose first, followed by return details, then usage guidance and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place and no information is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 tool with two optional parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the exact fields returned, the truncated behavior, a concrete use case, and a clear alternative for NTP. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, and the parameter descriptions for target and host_name already document their meaning and defaults. The tool description does not add deeper semantics for these parameters, but the schema carries the required burden, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get host service status (running state and startup policy).' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating its scope (services, not sensors or VMs) and by explicitly pointing to ntp_status for NTP-specific checks.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool ('check whether SSH, NTP or the firewall service is in the expected state'), names a preferred alternative for NTP (ntp_status), and excludes write operations by directing users to vmware-aiops for starting/stopping services.

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