List Containers

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that only 'owned' containers are returned and that the result is a hierarchy grouped into specific categories. This goes beyond annotation hints, though it doesn't detail response format or pagination.

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 sentence, perfectly concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaningful context, and there is no redundancy or 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?

For a parameterless, read-only list tool, the description adequately conveys the key behavior: returning an owned, hierarchical container structure grouped by the specified categories. It lacks an output schema, so a bit more detail about the return shape could be useful, but the low complexity and annotations cover most gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but with no parameters, there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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's function: listing the owned Container hierarchy. It specifies the exact grouping categories, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like personal_os_list_tasks or personal_os_list_projects. The verb 'List' and resource 'Container hierarchy' are specific and unambiguous.

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 for when to use the tool (to view container hierarchies in a particular grouping). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the grouping details make the intended use obvious. The lack of explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance prevents a perfect 5.

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