list_containers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description does not mention any side effects or additional behavior. It is a simple listing, but lacks explicit disclosure of output format or error conditions, so it earns a mid-level score.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. No unnecessary words or filler, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., list of container IDs and names), but the verb 'list' implies a list result. This is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 100% and the description essentially restates the parameter's purpose ('on a specific node or all nodes') which mirrors the schema description. No additional semantics are added beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'LXC containers', and specifies the scope ('on a specific node or all nodes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vms and list_nodes by its focus on LXC containers specifically.

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 implies when to use it by mentioning 'specific node or all nodes', but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_vms. It provides clear context for scope without naming alternatives or conditions, which is a minor gap.

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