qemu_list

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

Despite annotations already indicating destructive behavior, the description adds important lifecycle detail: exited VMs appear once as exited(...), then are reaped and their workdir and handles are freed before the call returns. This explains a non-obvious side effect that annotations alone would not convey.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds a necessary caveat about exited VMs. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary wording.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers what is listed, the fields available, and the important reaping behavior before the call returns.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it appropriately stays focused on the result and lifecycle behavior.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all VMs managed by this server,' and names the fields returned (arch, machine, hostfwd, pid, uptime, state). It is clearly distinguishable from snapshot-oriented siblings like qemu_snapshot_list, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the listing purpose, but the description does not state when to use qemu_list versus alternatives such as qemu_snapshot_list or qemu_version. There are no explicit when-not conditions.

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