list_guest_containers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and exceeds expectations. It states 'Read-only and idempotent' and then provides a detailed, nuanced explanation of four absence scenarios, including how docker_available and partial differentiate them. This level of behavioral disclosure is exceptional and prevents misinterpretation of edge cases.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists output fields, then explicitly states exclusions, and finally explains edge cases in a structured, logical progression. The length is justified by the complexity of the behavior being described, and there is no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the purpose, the output fields, what is deliberately omitted, and the full semantics of failure/absence cases. The only minor gap is the undefined 'profile' parameter, but overall context for agent decision-making is exceptional.

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 description implicitly defines 'node' (the node named) and 'vmid' (the LXC guest) through the opening sentence. However, it does not mention the 'profile' parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to explain this optional parameter. This is a notable gap, though the two primary parameters are clear.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: listing Docker containers inside a specific LXC guest on a named node. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('Docker containers ... inside one LXC guest'), and the scope is precise ('exactly the node named'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_guests, which list guests themselves, and inspect_compose_stack, which inspects compose stacks.

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 provides clear context about when this tool is appropriate: when you need container-level details within a particular LXC guest on a specific node. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X instead', but it clarifies what the tool does not return (env vars, labels, command lines) and explains the meaning of docker_available and partial, helping an agent decide if this tool fits. However, it stops short of explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives.

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