list_containers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are paginated or sorted, or what happens with invalid filters. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for a listing tool. Minor improvement could come from integrating the parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's well-organized and avoids redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (2 optional parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like permissions, pagination, or error handling. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but more operational guidance would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that 'node' filters by node name and 'status' filters by specific states ('running', 'stopped'), including enum values not in the schema. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints or default behaviors.

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 LXC containers across the cluster'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like list_vms and list_nodes by specifying LXC containers. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_guests or other container-related tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_vms or list_guests. It mentions filtering options but doesn't explain when filtering by node or status is appropriate or what happens without filters. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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