pool_list

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

The description includes '[READ]' to indicate read-only behavior and lists the returned fields (master, HA state, default SR). There are no annotations to contradict, and for a simple list tool, this is adequately transparent.

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 no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanation is neatly placed in an Args section. 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies what fields are returned and explains the parameter. It could mention that it lists all pools (implied) or potential error conditions, but overall 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains the single parameter 'target': 'Xen Orchestra target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'XCP-ng pools', and specifies the attributes included (master, HA state, default SR). This distinguishes it from siblings like pool_get (specific pool) and pool_patch_ha_posture (modify HA).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pool_get or host_list. The description lacks explicit 'when to use', 'when not to use', or references to sibling tools.

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