list_running_vms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and provides almost none. It does not say whether results are a point-in-time snapshot, whether the call is read-only (implied by "List" but unstated), or what identifying information is returned for each VM.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but no wording is wasted.

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 zero-parameter listing tool this is the minimum viable definition, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what the response looks like (VM names, IDs, states?) or whether pagination applies. A sentence on the return contents would close the gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List ... VMs") and the qualifier "running" narrows the scope, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_vms. It stops short of explicitly saying how it differs from list_vms or get_vm_state, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: the description never says to prefer this over list_vms when only active VMs matter, nor does it mention any prerequisites. The agent must guess at the intended situation.

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