vm_list

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. The [READ] prefix discloses read-only behavior, and the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the 1-1000 limit range, the default of 100, and the `truncated` indicator that signals pagination or response limits. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or performance, but for a simple list operation the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by a clean, aligned argument list with defaults and examples. Every sentence adds value, and no unnecessary detail is included.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description states the resource, the fields returned, the pagination behavior via `truncated`, and all parameter semantics. It omits minor aspects like ordering, error behavior, or explicit output shape, but the essential calling contract is covered.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, but the description fully compensates: it gives the limit range and default, explains the `truncated` flag, illustrates the search engine query language with concrete examples, and describes what the target parameter means and its default behavior. This is far richer than the bare 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 clearly identifies the operation (reading VMs) and enumerates the returned fields (status, host, vCPUs, memory, HA flag), so an agent knows what it physically does. It differentiates from vm_get and vm_stats by indicating a plural list of VMs, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 contains no guidance on when to select vm_list over its sibling tools such as vm_get, vm_stats, or host_list. It only explains the individual parameters and provides search examples, but never states the intended use case, exclusions, or when an alternative is more appropriate.

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