host_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates the tool is read-only via '[READ]' and discloses that the limit parameter results in a capped read with truncation indicators. No side effects or authorization information is given, but the read behavior is well explained.

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 and front-loaded with a [READ] tag and a brief purpose, followed by parameter bullet points. 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?

For a simple list tool with two params and no output schema, the description provides a good overview including response truncation fields. It could be slightly improved by stating the response is an array of hosts, but it is generally complete.

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 0%, but the description adds substantial meaning: limit is described as max rows with behavior (capped read, returned/limit/truncated fields), and target is explained as a Prism Central target name from config. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it is a READ operation to list hosts across all clusters, and explicitly lists the fields returned (extId, cluster, hypervisor, CPU/mem). It distinguishes from sibling tools like snapshot_list or vm_list by specifying the resource 'host' and the scope 'across all clusters'.

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 tags the tool as [READ] and explains the limit and target arguments, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or when to omit the target is provided beyond the parameter description.

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