vm_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the '[READ]' marker reinforces the non-mutating nature, and the note that 'truncated' says when more rows exist discloses pagination behavior an agent needs to detect incomplete results.

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?

Front-loaded with the read marker and returned fields, then a compact Args block where every line adds distinct information. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and the truncation flag, and fully specifies inputs. The remaining gap is routing: it never mentions the sibling tools (vm_get, vm_stats) that an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it documents the limit range (1-1000) and default (100), the 'truncated' signal, the search query language with two concrete examples, and the meaning of target plus the omit-to-use-default behavior. All three parameters gain semantics not present 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+resource ('[READ] VMs') and enumerates the fields returned (status, host, vCPUs, memory, HA flag), so an agent immediately knows this is a bulk inventory read. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling vm_get, but the list/get naming convention makes the split reasonably clear.

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 rather than stated: 'target: omit to use the default' gives a real conditional, and the search examples show how to filter. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick vm_list over vm_get, vm_stats, or vm_health_rca, which is the primary selection risk among these siblings.

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