ct_list

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

The description includes the '[READ]' prefix, indicating a read-only operation, and lists the return fields. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. Given no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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: a single line for purpose plus two lines for parameters. It is front-loaded with the '[READ]' tag and straight to the point, with no wasted words.

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?

The description lacks details on return type structure, pagination, or error scenarios. While it lists the fields returned, it does not specify whether the list is complete or filtered. For a list tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the two parameters ('target' and 'node') clearly, including their defaults and how omission behaves. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 lists LXC containers with specific fields (name, vmid, status, cpu, mem). The verb 'list' and resource 'LXC containers' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vm_list (VMs) and action-oriented tools like ct_start.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vm_list for VMs). It only explains optional parameters but lacks context about when default values are appropriate or when to choose this over other listing tools.

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