vdi_list

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

The description starts with '[READ]' indicating a safe read operation, describes the return format including truncation behavior, and defines orphaned. Without annotations, this provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 well-structured: a header line, definition of orphaned, return format, and a bullet-style args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the return format, parameter behavior, and the concept of orphaned VDIs. It could mention error handling or default target behavior, but it is largely complete for a list tool.

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%, but the description explicitly explains all four parameters (sr, orphaned_only, limit, target) in the args list, fully compensating for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states 'List VDIs (virtual disks)' with specific filtering options ('optionally per SR or orphaned-only'), providing a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like sr_list and vm_list.

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 explains when to use the orphaned filter ('candidates for reclaiming space') and optional SR filtering, providing context. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the usage is clear from the context.

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