qradar_list_servers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly says the tool 'lists' hosts and returns a JSON string with servers, hostnames, IP addresses, component types, and status, which is useful behavioral context and implies a read-only operation. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or large-result handling, but for a simple list-all tool this is a minor gap.

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 very short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and scope, and the second lists the useful output fields. Nothing extraneous is included.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It makes the scope explicit and even helps interpret the response by naming the expected fields.

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 and the schema coverage is effectively 100% since there are no properties to document. The description adds a helpful note about the listing scope and output fields, matching the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all managed hosts / appliances'. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which target rules, offenses, log sources, reference sets, and similar resources, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 when to use the tool (when you need an inventory of managed hosts/appliances in the QRadar deployment), but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer it over alternatives such as qradar_health_check or a more specific list/get tool. There is no exclusions/when-not guidance, but the zero-parameter list semantics make the use case reasonably inferable.

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