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 description need not restate safety. It adds useful context that server_id affects result filtering for client keys. However, it omits return format, pagination, or any other behavioral nuances.

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 short sentences, purpose first, then the condition. No wasted words or redundant information. Very efficient.

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 core purpose and the server_id condition, which is sufficient for a simple list operation. Yet it doesn't clarify the distinction from get_uploaded_isos or define 'available' (provider ISOs vs user-uploaded). With no output schema, a bit more detail on what the list contains would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – server_id already has a description stating it's required for client keys. The description repeats this same fact without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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?

Clearly states the purpose: lists available ISO images. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool get_uploaded_isos, which likely also lists ISO images (possibly user-uploaded ones). Without clarification, an agent might confuse the two.

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?

Provides a usage condition: client keys require server_id, and images are filtered per server. But it doesn't mention when to prefer this over get_uploaded_isos or other ISO-related tools, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives.

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