vm_list

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

The description discloses the return format and the critical truncation behavior ('When truncated is true there are more VMs than were returned — re-run with a higher limit'). Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool this is sufficient. The [READ] prefix adds clarity.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, one for return format, one for truncation behavior, and a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the purpose and structured logically.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity (filtering, truncation), the description covers everything needed: purpose, return shape, critical truncation behavior, and all parameters. There is no missing information that would hinder correct usage.

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 description documents all four parameters (power_state, pool, limit, target) with their purpose and defaults. The input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by providing meanings and expected values. It also explains the truncation behavior in context of limit.

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 starts with '[READ] List VMs with power state, host, tools status, sizing.' This clearly states the verb (List) and resource (VMs), and it specifies the fields returned. It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'vm_get' which retrieves a single VM.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The only contextual hint is the '[READ]' prefix, but no explicit comparison with sibling tools like 'overview' or 'backup_job_list'.

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