vm_list_plans

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces these with concrete behavioral guarantees: 'Listing never deletes' and 'Every plan file is read, so truncated is always false.' It also describes the return envelope structure, which is valuable 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds usage guidance and the return envelope in a compact, well-ordered manner. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers invocation intent, return format, listing-completeness semantics, and lifecycle ownership of stale plans. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is already fully self-explanatory, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description wisely focuses on output and behavior instead of inventing parameter details that don't exist.

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 opens with '[READ] List all pending/failed plans', naming a specific verb and resource with clear scope. It also distinguishes itself from related plan tools by mentioning apply/rollback and by explicitly stating that stale-plan sweeping belongs to vm_create_plan.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool first to obtain a plan_id for vm_apply_plan or vm_rollback_plan. It also clarifies what this tool is not for by stating that stale plans are swept by vm_create_plan, not by this tool.

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