images_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It only states the action without disclosing whether it is read-only, authentication needs, or any side effects. The mention of image types is useful but insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence. However, it could be improved by including parameter details while remaining concise. It is not overly verbose but lacks necessary content.

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 has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'controller' means, the context of 'disk images', or how `limit` affects results. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter and behavioral context.

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 sole parameter `limit` has no description in the input schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain its purpose or usage. This leaves the agent without critical information for correct invocation.

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') and the resource ('disk images') with specific types (qemu/ios/iou/docker), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `image_get` (single image) and `images_prune` (pruning).

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 implies usage for listing images but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools hint at differentiation, but no direct guidance is given.

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