host_list

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: unreported fields are null rather than 0, and the 'truncated' flag signals when more rows exist. It does not cover auth/target-resolution behavior in depth, but the null-semantics disclosure is genuinely non-obvious and useful.

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?

Front-loads what the tool is and its field set, then a caveat, then a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information and the args are terse but complete.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the key return behaviors (field list, null semantics, truncation signal) and the pagination contract. What's missing is only the response envelope shape, a minor gap for a list tool whose annotations already confirm it is a safe read.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all three parameters, and it does: limit with its 1-1000 range and default 100, search with the query language and literal examples ("status=up", "status!=up"), and target with its config-name meaning and default fallback. This fully compensates for the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('[READ] KVM hosts') and enumerates the returned fields (status, SPM role, memory, VM counts), which cleanly separates it from host_get (single host) and host_health_rca (diagnosis). An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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 an explicit routing rule: for "what is wrong with my hosts" use host_health_rca instead of reading this list yourself. That is a concrete when-not-use plus a named alternative, exactly the condition an agent needs to pick between the two tools.

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