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 genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are server-specific and matched to the server configuration rather than being a global catalog, and it flags the InvAPI client-key requirement. Return shape/pagination is not covered, but that is minor for a read-only listing.

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, front-loaded with the verb+resource, followed by the key constraint. No filler or repetition of the title, though the parenthetical endpoint reference is somewhat redundant.

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 listing tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description provides enough: what it lists, the required input, and the server-scoped matching behavior. Only the absence of sibling differentiation and return-format hints keeps it from being fully complete.

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 sole parameter 'id' is already documented as 'Server ID in InvAPI (required)'. The description adds only the rationale ('for client keys') and the matching behavior, which is marginal value beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List available ISO images') and even names the underlying API endpoint (iso/list_iso). It does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like get_uploaded_isos, list_os, or list_presets, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 notes a precondition ('InvAPI requires a server id') and that images are matched to the server configuration, which implies when the tool is applicable. However, it never states when to use this versus get_uploaded_isos or mount_iso, and gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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