hosts_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it never returns secrets and exposes isolation and global-mode state, which help an agent understand the scope of the read. This goes beyond the annotation's simple safety hints.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It doesn't waste words, but it omits the parameter explanation, so it's not perfectly complete.

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 only one optional parameter, the description covers the main action and output content, but the missing parameter semantics leaves a gap. The output schema exists, so return format is partly covered, but the full_output flag remains ambiguous, making the description only moderately complete.

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 full_output is completely undocumented in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no clue what full_output=true vs false does. The description fails to add any meaning for the parameter.

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?

Description states a specific verb 'List' and resource 'SSH hosts', enumerating the included details: workspace, auth summary, isolation, and global-mode state. This clearly differentiates from siblings like host_exec or shared_list, which have distinct purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage. No mention of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for other tasks.

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