list_guests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description aligns with these annotations by saying 'List', but adds no extra behavioral detail beyond the node-scope context.

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 entire description is one focused sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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 read-only listing tool with only two required parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. The only notable omission is explicit sibling differentiation, which is more of a usage-guideline concern than a completeness gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates: 'QEMU virtual machines or LXC containers' maps to the guest_type enum values, and 'on one node' clarifies the node parameter. However, it adds no detail about node constraints or how guest_type values map beyond what the schema's enum already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), specific resource types ('QEMU virtual machines or LXC containers'), and a clear scope ('on one node'). This distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like list_resources and list_nodes without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'on one node' implies this tool is for per-node guest listing, but the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives such as list_resources or get_guest_status. Usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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