unit_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the domain/impersonate scoping adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made or mention any permission requirements or rate limits.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by terse parameter definitions. There is no filler, repetition of schema defaults, or unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the operation and both parameters. It lacks explicit alternatives and an explicit read-only statement, but those are easily inferable from the tool name and sibling set.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description defines both parameters: domain as the owner of the Unit apps and impersonate as the owning user. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles, though the definitions are somewhat terse.

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 and resource: 'List Nginx Unit applications and routes for a domain'. This clearly identifies the tool as a read/list operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like unit_create and unit_delete.

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 provides clear context by scoping the operation to a domain and optionally an owning user. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the sibling names make the distinction obvious.

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