combell_windows_hostings_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds a small behavioral detail by noting the list is 'by domain name', implying the output contains domain names. It does not mention pagination or the shape of the return value, but given the annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate – it adds a little context without contradiction.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. It does not describe the return format beyond 'by domain name', which may leave the agent uncertain whether the result is an array of objects or strings. However, the scope is clearly stated, and given the lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a list tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both skip and take parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description does not add any extra meaning about how these parameters affect the output. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is correct; the description adds no value here.

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 the resource ('Windows hosting accounts') and the scope ('on your Combell account'). It distinguishes from the Linux hosting list sibling by specifying 'Windows'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the 'get' sibling for single-account retrieval, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like combell_windows_hostings_get or combell_linux_hostings_list. The description implies it's for listing all Windows hosting accounts, but does not state exclusions or when a more specific tool is appropriate. An agent must infer usage from the name.

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