Published VDI Desktops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only conceptual domain context (VDI = dedicated VM per user) and says nothing operational such as result ordering, pagination, or default row counts. Useful framing, but limited behavioral value beyond the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The middle definitional sentence is arguably optional but does help an agent distinguish VDI from session-based desktops, so it earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with a fully documented input schema, the description covers purpose and scope adequately. With no output schema, return shape is only implied by 'List ... resources', which is a minor gap but unlikely to cause misuse.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each of the three parameters (limit, fields, filter) is thoroughly documented in the schema, including the advice to prefer filter over raising limit. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the 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 ('List published VDI desktop resources') and adds a definition of what a VDI desktop is (dedicated VM per user), which implicitly separates it from the RDS/AVD desktop siblings. It's clear, though it never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

"Use this to review assignments or verify per-user desktop allocation" gives an implied usage context, so the agent knows the general scenario. However, there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing between this and ras_pub_get_rds_desktops / ras_pub_get_avd_desktops, which is the main ambiguity for a family of near-identical listing tools.

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