List configured hosts

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

With no annotations, the description conveys that the tool is read-only and optionally performs a TCP and SSH banner probe. This provides sufficient behavioral insight given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence covers purpose and optional behavior, the second explains output. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description mentions the output is 'names to use with the other tools', but does not specify the exact format (e.g., list of strings). It also omits prerequisites (e.g., presence of hosts.json). For a simple tool, it is adequate but not fully detailed.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the parameter 'probe'. The description adds 'TCP + SSH banner' nuance but does not significantly expand beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists hosts from hosts.json and can optionally probe reachability. It mentions that it returns names for other tools, which distinguishes its role from siblings like collect or container_deep_dive, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 context by stating that the returned names are to be used with other tools, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.

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