list_virtual_media

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive=false), so the description's added value is in explaining the returned semantics: stored images, selected image, attach state ('online'), and what host_visible_as means for the target's boot menu. That is substantive behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover edge cases or pagination.

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?

Front-loads the action and the pre-download check, then layers return-field semantics. Dense and mostly earning its space, though the parenthetical issue references (#127, #78) add mild noise without aiding invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly, including the key host_visible_as interpretation for boot-entry matching. For a simple read-only list tool with one optional param, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

There is a single optional 'profile' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already documents its config.toml origin and default fallback. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inventory the KVM's virtual-media (MSD) storage') with an explicit read-only scope. An agent can distinguish it from mount_iso/eject, which mutate media state, without opening any 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?

Gives a clear conditional trigger: 'Check this BEFORE asking the operator to download or upload an ISO — the image may already be on the device.' That is a concrete when-to-use rule. It does not name sibling tools (mount_iso/eject) as explicit alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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