list_containers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and fails to mention side effects (none expected for a list), required permissions, error conditions, pagination, or return format. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It immediately communicates the tool's 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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essentials. It tells the agent exactly what to expect (list of containers on a node) and the required input. However, it could be more complete by noting that only containers are returned (not VMs/templates) and possibly the response format.

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 for the single 'node' parameter. The description simply repeats 'specified node' without explaining what valid node identifiers are (hostname, IP, ID?) or any constraints. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name itself.

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'), a clear resource ('all LXC containers'), and the scope ('on a specified node'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_vms (VMs) and list_nodes (nodes).

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 when to use the tool (to list containers on a node) but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to use (e.g., get_container_status for a specific container, list_vms for VMs). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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