umbrella_list_virtual_appliances

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns status (useful context) and implies a read-only operation, but does not mention pagination behavior or any side effects. However, for a listing tool, the absence of caveats is acceptable.

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?

A single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the resource type and action. It could have elaborated on the output, but the sentence is efficient and direct.

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 (read-only list, no output schema, all parameters optional and well-documented in the schema), the description covers the core purpose and status. It might have mentioned that it returns a list of objects, but that's implicit from the tool name and phrasing.

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 schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, offset, additionalParams), including the escape hatch semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline of 3 is suitable given full schema coverage.

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 tool returns a list of virtual appliances with their status, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools that also list entities (e.g., umbrella_list_sites), though the resource name is sufficiently unique among the siblings.

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 it is for listing virtual appliances, which is a read operation, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. There are no alternative tools for the same resource, though stand-alone advice is minimal.

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