vm_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' tag is largely redundant with that. However, the description adds real behavioral context: the scan scope falls back from a named node to the configured default to all cluster nodes, and it names the fields returned, which matters since there is no output schema.

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-loads the core purpose, then scoping rules, then the sibling alternative, then per-argument notes. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 it usefully lists returned fields, and it covers both optional parameters and their defaults. It stops short of mentioning result size, pagination, or ordering behavior across cluster nodes.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does document both parameters (target = config target name, node = node name with fallback semantics). The node explanation ('configured node / all nodes') is slightly ambiguous about which applies when, keeping it short of a 5.

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 ('List') and resource ('QEMU VMs') and previews the returned fields (name, vmid, status, cpu, mem). It also implicitly separates itself from container listing via 'QEMU' and from per-VM detail via the vm_get pointer.

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?

Explicitly routes single-VM full-status needs to vm_get, and explains the scoping choices (given node, configured default node, or all cluster nodes). It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over other list-style siblings such as cluster_resources or ct_list.

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