host_list

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

The description declares read-only via '[READ]' but does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and offers basic transparency but lacks detail on potential constraints.

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 short and structured, with a clear header line followed by parameter explanations in a compact format. Every sentence provides 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and returned fields. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though a note about output structure could help further.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains 'pool' filters by pool UUID and 'target' selects a Xen Orchestra connection. Each parameter's purpose is clarified, though no examples or formats are given.

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 starts with '[READ] List hosts: version, state, memory usage, resident VM count.' It clearly states the action (list) and resource (hosts) with specific fields, differentiating from siblings like host_get which likely targets a single host.

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 optional parameters: 'pool' for filtering by pool UUID and 'target' for specifying Xen Orchestra target. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, but the context implies host_get for single host details, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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