qemu_vm_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context by disclosing the return content (lifecycle state), but it does not discuss behaviors such as failure modes when no broker is reachable or whether an empty list is returned.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb, includes the scoping qualifier, and discloses the return value. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter list tool with rich annotations, the definition is nearly complete: there are no inputs for an agent to get wrong, and the description states the return value (list of VMs and lifecycle state). Minor gap: with no output schema present, enumerating the actual lifecycle states would further help an agent interpret the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Schema coverage is trivially 100% with an empty properties object, and no parameter documentation is needed.

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+resource combination: 'List broker-managed QEMU VMs and their lifecycle state.' The qualifier 'broker-managed' scopes the tool distinctly from generic siblings like vm_list, and the mention of lifecycle state separates it from qemu_vm_status, which targets an individual VM.

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?

Usage is implied through the purpose statement: an agent needing to enumerate broker-managed QEMU VMs and their states would select this tool. The 'broker-managed' qualifier provides a scoping signal against alternatives like vm_list, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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