list_guests

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only and idempotent, stopped guests included, empty results on no match, and handling of unknown guests with partial markers. This goes well beyond structured fields and gives the agent critical expectations.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral detail. No filler or repetition. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 has 4 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers important edge cases (stopped, empty, unknown) and explicitly notes partial results. It is complete for a list operation and sufficiently rich despite the absence of annotations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'filtered subset' and the behavior of filters that match nothing, but does not explain each parameter's meaning (node, status, profile, guest_type) beyond what the schema already shows. The schema's enums help, but the description falls short of fully documenting parameter semantics.

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 tool lists every LXC and VM in the cluster, with optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like list_guest_containers by explicitly naming both LXC and VM guest types. The verb 'list' and specific resource are immediately clear.

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 useful context for when to use this tool, such as the inclusion of stopped guests and the read-only/idempotent nature. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full exclusionary guideline.

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