host_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantive work: it commits to exactly two returned fields and preempts the common misconception by stating no address, port, user, or credential comes back. It does not cover auth requirements, ordering, or empty-list behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, return shape, and cross-tool routing. The most important routing cue is front-loaded with 'Start here'.

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, so the description must describe returns, and it does so precisely down to field names and deliberate exclusions. For a one-optional-parameter listing tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and consume the result.

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 100% and the single 'enabled_only' parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description says nothing about filtering, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the SSH hosts known to the server') and goes further to define the exact output shape ('sys_name' and 'uid'). It is unmistakably the enumeration tool among siblings that otherwise create, update, delete, or connect to hosts.

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 'Start here' directive plus the explicit instruction to feed the returned 'uid' into other tools' host_id makes the workflow position of this tool clear. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement, but there is little meaningful alternative to steer away from.

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