adb_qemu_images

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It truthfully states the actions (list, create, delete) and storage location, but lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., deletion of images in use, overwriting on creation, permission requirements). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value (functionality + storage location). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the actions but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list output format, success messages for create/delete). Since there is no output schema, the description should provide hints about return values. This gap reduces completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, explaining all four parameters (action, name, sizeMb, format) with types, defaults, and constraints. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Manage QEMU disk images for virtual machines' and lists three specific operations (list, create, delete) with mention of supported formats (qcow2/raw). It effectively distinguishes from sibling qemu tools like adb_qemu_start, which deal with VM execution rather than image management.

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 provides a clear overview of when to use the tool (image management) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., starting/stopping VMs). The usage is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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