List VM packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the output includes labels, resource limits, and zones, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result size (those live only in the 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the first declares what is returned, the second declares why it matters. Nothing is redundant with the tool name or title.

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 paginated list with no output schema, the description covers the return fields and the key downstream dependency. The only gap is that pagination semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but means the description alone would not tell an agent to page through results.

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 100%, with page and pageSize fully documented including defaults, bounds, and the hint to increment page. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 and resource ('List the available VM packages (compute tiers)') and names the fields returned (labels, CPU/memory/disk limits, zones). It is clearly distinct from the singular siblings get_vm_package and get_vm_package_by_label by naming, though the description itself does not explicitly route to them.

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?

It gives concrete downstream context: package labels are required by create_vm and get_cost_estimate_vm, which tells an agent why to call this before those tools. It stops short of any explicit exclusion or comparison with get_vm_package / get_vm_package_by_label, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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