gns3_list_appliances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that appliances are 'pre-configured device definitions that can be installed,' hinting at read-only behavior for listing, but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements (implied by username/password parameters), rate limits, or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the action, and the second clarifies the resource. There is zero wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (a list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete for basic understanding. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and three parameters, it lacks details on authentication, server interaction, and parameter usage, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about the three parameters (server_url, username, password), such as their purposes, formats, or defaults. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameters semantically undefined.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available appliances'), providing a specific action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gns3_list_templates' or 'gns3_list_nodes' by focusing on appliances, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The explanation of appliances as 'pre-configured device definitions that can be installed' adds useful context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like server connectivity, authentication needs, or how it differs from other list tools (e.g., 'gns3_list_templates' for templates vs. appliances). The description implies usage for retrieving appliance data but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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