VDI Templates

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

The annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds valuable context by explaining what VDI templates are ('Templates define the base image and settings for provisioned VDI desktops') and what specific information is returned. This enhances understanding beyond the basic safety profile indicated by annotations.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, defining the resource, and providing usage guidance. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 read-only listing tool with comprehensive annotations and no parameters, the description provides excellent context about what information is returned and when to use it. The only minor gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates well by specifying what information is included ('status, and configuration') and providing usage examples.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the tool's purpose and output semantics, which is the correct approach for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('VDI templates'), and specifies what information is included ('their status, and configuration'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on VDI templates rather than other infrastructure components like agents, certificates, or connection brokers listed in the sibling tools.

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 provides explicit usage contexts ('Use this to check template versions, maintenance mode status, or provisioning settings'), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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