list_vms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, pagination behavior, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a tool that lists resources across a cluster.

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?

Perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clean Args section. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it immediately understandable and scannable.

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 moderate complexity (listing across a cluster with filtering), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters well. It's complete enough for basic usage, though additional behavioral context would enhance it for a production environment.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'node' filters by node name and 'status' filters by specific states ('running', 'stopped'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain format requirements or default behaviors when parameters are omitted.

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 specific action ('List all QEMU virtual machines') and resource ('across the cluster'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_containers, list_nodes, or list_snapshots. It precisely defines scope without being vague or tautological.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_guest_status or list_containers. The description mentions filtering options but doesn't specify contexts where this tool is preferred over others for similar queries.

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