iso_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the check is non-invasive because it performs 'no host-side mounting.' It does not address failure behavior, error signaling, authentication, or any side effects beyond that single constraint.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the non-mounting constraint following immediately. Every clause carries information; no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a single required parameter keeps the surface small. Purpose, scope, and the key non-side-effect constraint are covered; only explicit sibling routing and path expectations are missing, which are minor given the schema.

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?

One parameter (iso_path) at 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. It clarifies that the input is an install ISO image, which gives some context, but adds nothing about accepted path forms (absolute, UNC, URL) or file expectations. Marginal value over the self-describing parameter name.

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+resource ('Validate an install ISO') and enumerates the checks (media exists, recognizable Windows boot/install structure), which is concrete. The clause 'with no host-side mounting' implicitly differentiates it from vm_mount_iso, but the sibling it is closest to (iso_inspect) is never named, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

'before use' gives a clear triggering context for when to call it, which is better than nothing. However, no alternatives are named (iso_inspect, iso_extract, vm_mount_iso are all plausible candidates) and there is no when-not guidance, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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