List VMs

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 by structured fields. The description adds the pagination trait ('one page at a time') and enumerates the returned fields, but says nothing about total counts, next-page signaling, or ordering, so the added behavioral context is modest.

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?

It is a single well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. The trailing enumeration of returned fields is useful rather than redundant, given there is no output schema, though it makes the sentence slightly long.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the pagination model and the shape of returned items, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it and how to interpret results. Lacking only pagination-termination details, it is close to complete.

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 both page and pageSize fully documented including defaults and the 500 cap, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's 'one page at a time' aligns with the paging parameters but adds no format or usage detail beyond them; baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the virtual machines') plus the scope ('in your American Cloud account'), which clearly separates it from the singular get_vm sibling. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5, but an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the plural 'List' and 'one page at a time' suggest this is the bulk-enumeration path versus get_vm for a single machine, but no alternative or when-not-to-use condition is stated. There is also no guidance on whether pageSize should be raised instead of walking pages, which the schema hints at but the description does not reinforce.

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