pool_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the [READ] prefix confirms safety. The description adds the type field enumeration and the paginated envelope note, which clarifies the return structure. It does not detail pagination behavior, but given the annotations cover the read-only nature, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the [READ] prefix and the verb 'List', then enumerates fields concisely. The second sentence adds a critical functional relationship and the pagination note in a compact way. Every word contributes.

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 list tool with three optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it returns, the type values, and its role in verification. The output schema is absent, but the field list compensates. Nothing missing for correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (limit, offset, target) is already documented in the schema. The description only adds the pagination envelope concept, which is minimal. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists Horizon desktop pools and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, type, enabled, assignment). It also mentions the type values (AUTOMATED/MANUAL/RDS), which distinguishes it from app_pool_list and other list variants. The verb 'List' plus the resource and scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states it is the 'verify pair' for two sibling tools: pool_set_enabled and pool_push_image. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool (to verify changes) and implicitly distinguishes it from other list tools. There is no direct alternative named, but the relationship to specific siblings is stated, which is more than typical.

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