slide_list_virtual_machines

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It adds a meaningful security-related behavior: VNC connection info is included but the live VNC password is never returned, even though the underlying API provides it. This is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs.

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 tightly written sentences carry the main action, the filterable aspect, and the key behavioral caveat. There is no filler, and the most important qualifying information is front-loaded.

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 six optional parameters are fully described in the schema, the description covers the tool's core purpose and one important return-value behavior. The lack of an output schema means some return-structure detail is still unspecified, but the description provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds limited parameter-level meaning by mentioning filtering by creation date, which maps to created_after and created_before, but it doesn't elaborate on limit, offset, or sort behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('virtual machines created from a snapshot'), with an additional qualifier of filtering by creation date. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like slide_get_virtual_machine, which focuses on a single VM rather than listing.

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 purpose is fairly self-evident as a listing operation, and the description points out what the tool returns, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools such as slide_list_snapshots or slide_get_virtual_machine.

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