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 burden. It states the core behavior but does not add details such as read-only safety, output shape, or what happens when the node does not exist. The 'list' wording implies a non-mutating read, yet that is not explicitly stated.

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 communicates the action, resource, and optional targeting with no wasted words.

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 one optional parameter and no nested objects, the description plus schema is nearly complete. It could be improved by explicitly noting the non-mutating nature and the return shape, but nothing essential for invoking it is missing.

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 100% and the node parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds the 'all nodes' default behavior, but this mostly restates what the schema already conveys.

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 names the specific operation (list), the resource (virtual machines), and the scoping options (a specific node or all nodes). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_containers and get_vm_status.

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 gives clear context: VMs may be listed for one node or all nodes, and the schema notes that omitting node broadens the query. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the resource focus makes the intended use obvious.

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