host_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful 'titkok nelkul' (no secrets) caveat, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as configuration source or failure behavior; with strong annotations this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the tool's scope and the secret-handling caveat, and the second specifies the per-host fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, which fields are included, and that secrets are excluded. Annotations cover the safety aspects and the schema covers the empty argument, so no critical information is missing.

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 only parameter is an EmptyInput wrapper with no properties, so there is effectively no parameter semantic to document. The input schema itself makes clear that the caller must pass an empty object, so the description need not compensate for a 0% schema-description coverage gap in this case.

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 the resource as 'configured remote machines' and the exclusion of secrets, then enumerates the returned per-host fields (name, hostname, user, port, key/password-env). This clearly identifies a read-only host inventory and distinguishes it from mutating host_* siblings, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit command verb.

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 the use case: retrieving configured remote hosts, and the 'without secrets' caveat signals it is not for obtaining credentials. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it compared with host_add, host_remove, host_test, or host_run, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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