listServiceVhosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey whether the operation is safe. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or any side effects. For a list operation, this is adequate but not rich; it adds no extra context beyond the verb.

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 a single sentence with no filler words. It conveys the essential scope in a compact way. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy, so it earns full marks for conciseness.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no annotations, and while an output schema exists, the description is minimal. It does not explain how this tool relates to sibling listVhosts, nor does it mention the optional account_handle or the expected hierarchy of app/service/vhost. For an agent to use this correctly, crucial context about parameter dependencies and scope 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not enumerate or explain the parameters. It only says 'for a specific service', which maps to service_handle, but does not clarify the roles of app_handle or the optional account_handle. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but the description contributes almost no additional meaning, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action (list) and resource (vhosts), and adds a scoping phrase 'for a specific service' that distinguishes it from the sibling tool listVhosts, which likely lists vhosts across services. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with listVhosts, so it misses the highest bar for sibling differentiation.

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: call this when you need vhosts for a given service. It does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like listVhosts or getVhost. This is only implied usage, not explicit, so it gets a mid-range score.

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