list_images

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description aligns with these, so no contradiction. However, the description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as whether the list is paginated, sorted, or includes all image details. With openWorldHint=true, the agent might expect filtered results but the description doesn't explain the default visibility of all images. The description adds some value by stating 'bootable' and the filter, but lacks details on return behavior.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It effectively communicates the core purpose without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place, and the optional filter is mentioned succinctly.

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 an output schema (though not detailed here) and annotations indicating read-only and open-world behavior, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple list operation. The optional name filter is mentioned, and the limit parameter is self-explanatory. The tool is not overly complex, and the description covers the key aspects, though it could explicitly note pagination or output structure, but the output schema likely handles that.

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 has two optional parameters: name and limit, with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'filtered by a name substring,' which partially explains the name parameter, but the limit parameter is not explained. Since the schema already provides parameter names, the description adds minimal additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema exists, but coverage is low, so description should compensate more; it does provide the filter hint, earning a 3.

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 lists bootable images with an optional name substring filter. The verb 'list' and resource 'bootable images' are specific, and the 'optionally filtered' clause adds scope. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_servers, list_flavors, etc., though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 when to use this tool—when you need to list bootable images—but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. For instance, it doesn't clarify that get_server or cloud_info might be used for other image-related queries. The optional filtering is mentioned, but no context on the filter syntax or purpose beyond that.

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