appliances_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'List appliances' and hints that update refreshes from registry. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it has side effects, or what happens when update is true (e.g., network call). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a usage hint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it could benefit from more structure, the brevity is appropriate for a simple list tool. There is no fluff.

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 tool has a simple interface with 3 optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers the main action and one parameter, but lacks explanation for two parameters. Given the output schema exists, return values are documented. Still, the description is incomplete for a fully autonomous agent to use correctly without guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'update' parameter briefly. The 'symbol_theme' and 'limit' parameters are not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to guess their meaning or rely on parameter names alone. This is a significant gap.

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 action (list) and resource (appliances from GNS3 catalog). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'acl_list' or 'computes_list' by specifying the catalog context. However, it lacks a verb-noun phrase that explicitly sets it apart from other list tools in the sibling list, which are all similarly named.

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 mentions the optional update parameter to refresh from registry, providing some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other list tools (e.g., when a catalog refresh is needed). There is no clear 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context.

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