List containers (cluster-wide)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by specifying that it returns container status and resource usage, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions or missing safety details are present.

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, concise sentence that contains all essential information: the action ('List'), the scope ('all LXC containers across the cluster'), and the content ('with status and resource usage'). There is no trivial or redundant information.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns (status and resource usage). The annotations cover safety and idempotency. No additional context is necessary for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly aligns with 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 'List all LXC containers across the cluster with status and resource usage.' The verb 'List' and resource 'LXC containers (cluster-wide)' are specific, and the scope 'all' distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual containers (e.g., get_container_status, get_container_config) or other resource types (e.g., get_vms).

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 usage for getting an overview of all containers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that for a single container's details, one should use get_container_config or get_container_status. The absence of explicit when-not or alternative guidance keeps the score at a minimal adequate level.

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