host_list

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

The description includes a '[READ]' prefix indicating it's a safe read operation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or what happens if no hosts match. Given no annotations, the description carries the burden and falls short of full transparency.

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 one-line summary followed by two bullet-point args with no filler. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

While the description covers the primary purpose and parameters, it lacks details on the return structure (beyond mentioning fields), error scenarios, or behavior when filters are invalid. Given no output schema, more completeness would benefit an AI agent.

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%, but the description adds clear semantics: 'Optional pool uuid to filter by' and 'target name from config; omit for the default'. This provides meaning beyond the schema property titles.

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 hosts and specifies the returned fields: version, state, memory usage, resident VM count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like host_get (single host) and vm_list (VMs).

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 explains the optional parameters (pool, target) but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives like host_get. It omits any 'when not to use' or comparative guidance.

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