List Cloud Server images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the backing endpoint, which is mildly useful context, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what happens with an invalid region.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the read tag and purpose, with zero filler. Every element (verb, resource, region scope, endpoint) earns its place.

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 single-parameter, non-paginated list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. It could note whether results are paginated or how many images typically return, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already documents the region example format. The description reinforces the region scoping but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond it, so 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+resource ('List images/OS') and adds scope ('available in a region'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate from siblings, but no sibling lists images, so ambiguity is low.

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 '[READ]' tag implies safe retrieval, and the region requirement is implicit through the parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative for looking up a single image or flavor.

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