list_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful scope clarification by calling images 'OS templates'. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination, default depth implications, or the silent-empty-result behavior of filters, leaving those to the schema.

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 with the action and resource, containing no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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 read-only list tool with well-described parameters and a clear annotation, the description is mostly sufficient. The only notable gaps are lack of return-format or pagination details and sibling differentiation, but no output schema exists to fill those gaps.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for depth and filters, including filter semantics and a silent-empty-result caveat. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the rubric baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'List' with resource 'images (OS templates)' and scope 'all available images in IONOS CLOUD'. This clearly identifies the tool's function and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like list_templates in a large list_* family.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar list_* alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and the verb 'List'.

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