list_vms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is a list/read operation and discloses the return content (names, IDs, states, resource info). It does not mention auth or edge cases, but the read-only nature is clear from 'List' and 'Returns'.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second sentence details the output. No wasted words, fully 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?

For a simple list operation with no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. It adds scope and status details beyond the schema, making it complete.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter information because none are needed.

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') with a clear resource scope ('all virtual machines on the QNAP NAS') and states what is returned (names, IDs, states, basic resource info). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vm (single VM) and get_vm_states (likely state-focused).

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 usage (when you need a list of all VMs with status) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as get_vm or get_vm_states. There is no exclusions or alternative guidance, so it stops at implied usage.

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