list_virtual_media

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the return payload includes stored images, selected image, and attach state, and explains the meaning of host_visible_as. This helps the agent understand the tool's output without an 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 primary purpose, followed by actionable guidance, return details, and a pointer to further documentation. It is somewhat noisy with issue reference numbers (#127, #78), but overall each sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and key return fields. However, it omits any explanation of the 'profile' parameter and does not fully describe the output structure beyond a few fields. The missing parameter documentation creates a notable gap in completeness.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'profile' with no description (0% schema coverage), and the description does not mention any parameter. The agent is left without any guidance on what 'profile' refers to or how to use it, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Inventory') and resource ('KVM's virtual-media (MSD) storage'), and explicitly notes it is read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mount_iso and eject, which perform mutations.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Check this BEFORE asking the operator to download or upload an ISO') and explains how to interpret host_visible_as to pick the correct boot entry. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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