boxes.list

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must communicate the operation type. 'List' implicitly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, so an agent can reasonably infer safety. However, it does not disclose what the returned list contains (e.g., domain names, UUIDs, status) or the output format, which is relevant when there is no output schema. For a simple listing tool this is acceptable, but it 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 a single, compact sentence that gets straight to the point, front-loading the verb and the resource. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. Every word contributes to the tool's definition. This is an ideal example of conciseness without under-specification.

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 parameter-less listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it tells the agent exactly what is being listed. However, it leaves room for clarification about the return structure (e.g., does it return domain names, objects, or a list of IDs?). Given the sibling tool boxes.info exists, a brief note on the output shape would have made it complete. Nevertheless, the core functionality is fully specified, so this is slightly above average in completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meaning. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not add any parameter-specific information because there are none to describe. This score appropriately reflects that the parameter burden is void.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('all libvirt domains (VMs) managed by GNOME Boxes/libvirt'). It unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like boxes.info (which would provide details on a specific domain) and state-changing tools like boxes.start. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 makes it obvious that this tool is the enumeration/list command among the siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over boxes.info or mention that it returns all domains, which could be a useful precursor to calling boxes.info on a specific domain. The lack of explicit when/alternatives guidance is minor given the tool's self-explanatory nature, but a note about being a read-only enumeration step would have made it a 5.

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