infra

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context beyond a bare label: results are read-oriented, credentials are returned as names only (a security-relevant disclosure), and each fact carries its provenance. It does not mention authentication (despite an api_key parameter), read-only guarantees, or rate/scale limits, so the safety profile is only partially covered.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact pattern of usage examples. It is dense but every clause adds information; the "(names only)" aside and the provenance clause earn their place. Slightly long, but no filler sentences.

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 complex, argument-flexible tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the shape of what comes back well (tree vs. single item with runs-on/exposes/stores/talks-to). It is silent on how the agent/api_key authentication works and on query syntax details, so an agent calling it can guess the return but not fully understand required invocation context.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It conveys what the query parameter accepts by example (a name, an LXC id, an IP) but never names the parameter, and the agent and api_key parameters are entirely unaddressed in both schema and description, leaving invocation semantics incomplete.

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 names a concrete resource (the infrastructure map) and enumerates exactly what it covers — machines, LXCs/VMs, containers, services, domains, tunnels, storage, repos, credential names. An agent immediately knows this is a topology/relationship lookup rather than a messaging or coordination tool. It stops short of naming a sibling it is distinct from, but no sibling in the list overlaps with it, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It gives explicit call patterns — infra() for the whole tree versus infra("plex"), infra("LXC 106"), infra("192.168.50.205") for a single item — which is real usage guidance. However it never states when to prefer the single-item form over the full tree, nor any alternative tool to use instead, so usage is implied by example rather than framed as a decision rule.

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