list_countries

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the host parameter indicates the list is console-scoped, but the description does not mention error behavior, invalid host handling, or whether the result set changes by host. Still, for a simple list operation, the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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 compact: one sentence states the tool's purpose, and one sentence documents the required parameter format. There is no redundant or filler 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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool has a single required parameter, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that 'console' is not explicitly defined, though the host parameter format makes it sufficiently clear that it refers to a console device identifier.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining the only parameter: 'host: console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format).' This gives the agent concrete accepted formats beyond the bare string type in 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all countries with ISO codes'), and a scoping condition ('on a console'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_sites or list_accounts, which fetch different resource types.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs the list of countries available on a given console. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it; for a unique list operation, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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