server_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the name: it actively probes connectivity to every host, which implies latency and possible per-host failures. It says nothing about timeouts, what happens to unreachable hosts, or whether the call is read-only/side-effect free.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, leading with the primary action (list hosts) and appending the secondary behavior (connection test). Nothing to trim and nothing structurally misplaced.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action and the extra connection-test behavior. The main residual gap is operational: no hint that the call may be slow or that results are per-host, which matters for an agent sequencing this before other Docker calls.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the scope is the full configured host set rather than a caller-supplied subset.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List the Docker hosts") plus a secondary action ("test the connection to each"), which separates it from container-level siblings like docker_ps and from server_info. The phrase "this tool knows" is slightly vague about where hosts come from (configured host list), but the operation is unmistakable.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery/health-check step for hosts, but the description never says when to prefer it over server_info, docker_ps, or server_service, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that hosts must be preconfigured). No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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