list_containers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb "list" inherently communicates a read-only operation, and the format options are disclosed. However, the description does not explain potential edge cases (e.g., behavior with no containers, ordering, or whether WSL-specific context matters). For a list tool, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause earns its place: the first states the core function, the second explains the optional parameter. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

This is a simple, single-parameter tool with no required parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers what the tool does and how to control the output format. Given the low complexity, it provides a complete picture; nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the 'format' parameter is fully described in the schema (enum and default). The description adds only "optional" and repeats the enum values, which adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List all WSL containers." This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like container_inspect or container_start. The mention of "WSL" adds a helpful scope qualifier, and the optional format parameter is explicitly linked to the tool's purpose.

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 usage by its very nature—you'd use this to list containers—but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. container_inspect). It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage instruction for the 'format' parameter is present, but that's parameter guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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