list_vms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds only the policy-visibility constraint; it does not state return shape, pagination, ordering, or whether inaccessible VMs are omitted.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a list tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps scored elsewhere.

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 four-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits filter semantics, return contents, and policy implications that an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is 50%: query and state are documented in the schema, while tag and group are not. The description's 'optionally filtered' does not explain any parameter's meaning or accepted values, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('VirtualBox VMs'), plus scope ('visible under the current policy') and optional filtering. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list_running_vms, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Mentions optional filtering but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not point to list_running_vms or get_vm_info for narrower queries. An agent must infer tool selection from the name alone.

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