list_hosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists hosts with status fields, which is adequate for a simple read operation. However, it omits details like idempotency, performance, or any side effects, remaining generic.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose, second provides usage context. No redundant or vague language.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential information: what it lists and the use case. It could mention that it returns all hosts without filters or pagination, but is otherwise complete.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information since none exist.

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 tool lists every configured host with its status, including default flag and cert availability. This is a specific verb-resource combination and is distinct from sibling tools like server_info or search.

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 explicitly suggests using the tool to diagnose potential failures before making a tool call against a particular host. It provides a clear use case but does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives.

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