Lxc List

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the operation is a read-only listing of all containers and specifies the returned metric categories, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential large-response behavior, pagination, error conditions, or that the call may be expensive when many containers exist.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and returned values with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's ability to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete. It defines the operation, the container scope, and key metrics. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit pointer to lxc_get_info for single-container detail, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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)Skip, so there are no parameter details to explain. The description's 'List all' reinforces that the tool takes no filtering arguments)Skip, which aligns with the empty schema. Baseline of 4 for no parameters 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all LXC containers') and immediately states the exact fields returned (VMID, name, status, CPU, RAM, Disk). The word 'all' and the listing scope distinguish it clearly from sibling tools like lxc_get_info or lxc_control_power.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lxc_get_info for a single container or lxc_service_status for service-level status. The usage context is only implied by 'List all'; no exclusions or decision rules are provided.

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