list_vhosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. "列出所有" weakly implies a read-only, unfiltered listing, but there is no mention of authentication needs, pagination, result volume, or what is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 short phrase with no wasted words and is inherently front-loaded. It is efficient, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. Appropriate size for a trivial tool, but it earns little credit for content.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about the tool's behavior and results. It says nothing about the return shape, pagination, or ordering, leaving the agent without the context it needs to interpret results.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, this scores 4 by default; the description does not need to compensate for anything here.

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 phrase "列出所有虚拟主机" does state a verb (list) and resource (virtual hosts) with an explicit "all" scope, so the purpose is discernible. However, it is essentially a translation of the tool name and adds no differentiating detail beyond it. It is adequate but minimal, landing at the minimum-viable level.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to siblings such as get_cluster_status or list_queues. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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