list_iso_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that — that the server id is needed specifically for client keys and that results are filtered by server configuration — but it says nothing about return format, pagination, or rate limits.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the key prerequisite. No filler, though the parenthetical endpoint name is marginal value.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites (required server id, config-based filtering). Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing, though it could note what the returned list contains.

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%, so the single id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds a nuance (id required for client keys), but this maps closely to the schema's own note that id is mandatory; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource (list available ISO images) and even names the underlying API endpoint (iso/list_iso). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_os or get_uploaded_isos by the ISO-image resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

It implies usage context by stating that InvAPI requires a server id and that images are matched to server configuration, which tells the agent when the tool is applicable. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., get_uploaded_isos) and no exclusions.

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