list_hosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation by stating 'List...Returns', but does not explicitly disclose safety, idempotency, authentication needs, or side effects. The schema's limit parameter hints at auto-pagination, but that is not in the description.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the action and resource, then offers optional usage, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 complexity of a list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields (names, IPs, capacity, health) and optional filtering. It is almost complete, but could mention pagination behavior or default ordering.

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%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds only 'Optionally filter by cluster', which reinforces cluster_uuid but does not add format or behavior details beyond the schema.

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), resource (hypervisor hosts), scope (across clusters), and the specific return fields (names, IPs, capacity, health). It distinguishes from sibling get_host which retrieves a single host.

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 mentions optional filtering by cluster, providing some context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like pe_list_hosts or list_clusters, and lacks when-not guidance.

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