qemu_media_list

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

The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by scoping to 'this managed VM's media directory' and clarifying that the tool reports what is 'configured as mounted,' which is a meaningful nuance. However, it does not go further into behavior such as empty-result handling or behavior for invalid vm_id, so it provides only modest additional transparency beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action first and the additional reporting behavior second. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. Every phrase earns its place.

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, single-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains both the input scope and the expected output: a list of ISO images plus the configured mounted ISO. It could be slightly more explicit about edge cases such as 'no ISOs present' or 'no mount configured,' but these are minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only documents vm_id via name and pattern. The description implicitly ties vm_id to 'this managed VM,' which helps an agent infer that the parameter identifies the VM whose media directory should be listed. However, it does not explicitly explain the parameter or instruct the agent on where to obtain a valid vm_id, such as from qemu_vm_list or vm_list.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('ISO images stored in this managed VM's media directory'), and adds the distinct reporting function of which ISO is configured as mounted. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like qemu_media_mount, qemu_media_eject, and qemu_media_delete, which are action-oriented rather than inspection-oriented.

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 makes the operational context clear: an agent should use this tool when it needs to inspect the VM's media directory and see the currently configured mounted ISO. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only list-and-report framing is a clear enough context for selecting it over the mutation-focused sibling media tools.

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