pool_list

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

No annotations provided, but the description includes '[READ]' to indicate a safe read operation and lists the returned fields. It lacks details on permissions or side effects, but for a list tool this is adequate.

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, with two lines for purpose and one for parameter. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses a clear '[READ]' label. 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality. It could mention return format or pagination, but for a list that likely returns all pools, it is sufficient.

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 single parameter 'target' is described in the Args: 'Xen Orchestra target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which has no description. Schema coverage is 0% so the description compensates well.

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 a read verb 'List' and the resource 'XCP-ng pools', specifying the fields returned (master, HA state, default SR). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pool_get or pool_patch_ha_posture.

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 implies usage for listing pools but does not explicitly guide when to use versus alternatives like pool_get for detailed info or other list tools. No when/not-to-use guidance.

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