pool_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description does add value by disclosing what each returned record contains (master, HA state, default SR), but says nothing about pagination, filtering, or auth/target resolution behavior beyond the param note.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the capability sentence comes first, followed by a compact Args block for the single parameter. No waste, though the '[READ]' tag duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than earning its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the salient returned fields. For a one-optional-parameter read-only listing tool this is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is the absence of any note on result size/pagination.

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% (only a bare 'Target' title with default null), so the description must carry the param burden and it does: it explains that target is a Xen Orchestra target name from config and that omitting it selects the default. That is real semantic clarification beyond the schema, though it stops short of format examples.

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 ('List XCP-ng pools') and even names the fields returned (master, HA state, default SR), which is more than a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'pool_get', so an agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction, keeping it at a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied: a read-only listing tool is obviously for enumeration/discovery, and the target param guidance ('omit for the default') is a useful usage note. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to pool_get for fetching a specific pool.

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