list_guests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations, notably that each guest has a 'confirm token used by destructive tools', and it clarifies the scope covers both VMs and containers. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or potential permission requirements.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and lists the output fields concisely. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the read-only annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It mentions the confirm token detail, which is valuable for downstream destructive tools. It could have briefly indicated optional filters, but the schema covers them adequately.

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 must compensate for parameter documentation but does not. It makes no mention of `running_only` or `include_templates`. While the property names are self-explanatory, the description itself adds no parameter semantics, so the burden is entirely on 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 the tool's function: 'List every VM and LXC container' and specifies the output fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like guest_status or guest_config, which target individual guests, and resource_summary, which aggregates differently.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios favoring list_guests over similar list tools. The description implies enumeration but does not state context or alternatives.

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