Список образов

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

The description states 'Возвращает список' (returns a list), clearly a read-only operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=false, implying the tool may not be read-only. This is a direct contradiction, mandating a score of 1 despite the description adding useful context about what images are.

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 concise sentences. The first states the tool's purpose and output fields, the second defines images for context. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (id, name, status, OS, location, size) and explaining the concept of images. It omits exact array structure but that is implied by 'list'. Adequate for a simple read-only list tool with optional pagination params.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both limit and offset, including their optional nature and defaults. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 returns a list of all images for the account, specifying the exact fields (id, name, status, OS, location, size). It also defines what images are (disk snapshots or uploaded qcow2/iso), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_image or list_image_downloads.

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 clear context: use this tool to list all images of the account, with no mention of alternatives or exclusions. It implies the use case (listing images) but does not explicitly compare against get_image or other image-related tools, so it stays one step below a perfect score.

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