list_hosts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context that annotations cannot: credentials (passwords and keys) are deliberately excluded from the output, which tells an agent it cannot chain directly into an authenticated call from this data. Pagination, ordering, and result limits remain unstated.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The returned-field list leads, the security caveat follows, and the parameter note closes — a sensible front-loaded order with every clause carrying information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-structure explanation is not required, yet the description still signals the shape of a result and the privacy constraint on it. For a single-optional-parameter read tool with strong annotations, this is close to complete; only edge behavior (empty results, large host lists) 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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it explains that `query` filters by label, address, or group, which is information the bare string/null schema does not convey. It stops short of specifying match semantics (substring vs. exact, case sensitivity) or that null means no filtering.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List saved Termius hosts') and enumerates the returned fields (label, address, port, group, username, auth type), which distinguishes it from the session-oriented siblings like list_terminal_sessions and list_sftp_sessions. It never explicitly contrasts itself with connect_host, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before connect_host or a key-based action, but no sentence says when to use this versus those alternatives or what prerequisites exist. No exclusions or negative conditions are given.

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