list_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it lists only ISO images 'available for mounting to VMs,' which filters the result set. As a read-only list operation, the verb 'List' inherently communicates the non-mutating nature, so additional side-effect disclosure is unnecessary.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the action, the resource, the location, and the purpose without any redundancy. Every word 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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It specifies what is listed (ISO images), where (QNAP NAS), and the relevance (for mounting to VMs), which is sufficient context for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for such tools is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information because there are none to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ISO images available on the QNAP NAS'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mount_iso or download_iso. It also adds the purpose 'for mounting to VMs,' which makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use it (when you need to see available ISO images for mounting to VMs) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This provides clear context without exclusions, fitting the criteria for a 4.

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