list_vms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the returned information fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the operation is read-only, if it has side effects, or any rate limiting. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise with only two sentences and no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core purpose, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points for arguments).

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, listing action) and the existence of an output schema for return values, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks details about node format, error behaviors, and result ordering, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 description only repeats the parameter name (node) and its type from the schema, adding no additional meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description should compensate, but it fails to provide extra context like expected format or validation rules.

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 action (list), the resource (QEMU virtual machines), and the scope (on a node) along with the returned fields (status, memory, CPU, disk info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_containers or get_vm_status.

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 specifies that the tool lists VMs on a given node but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_vm_status for a single VM). The context is clear but lacks usage scenarios or exclusions.

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