list_server_cdroms

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. The description adds a valuable behavior note within the `filters` parameter: 'If the result is empty, retry without filters — a filter typo or mismatch silently returns nothing.' This goes beyond the simple read-only hint by warning about silent empty results. However, no other behavioral aspects (e.g., rate limits, auth) are mentioned, but they are less critical for a read-only list.

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, direct sentence: 'List all CD-ROMs attached to a specific server.' Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 listing operation with well-documented parameters, the description is sufficient. It might have mentioned that filters support contains matching (already in schema) or any default depth behavior, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature, the description is complete enough.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The main description adds no parameter details, but the schema carries the load. The `filters` parameter includes a helpful caveat, but this is part of the schema, not the main description. Since schema coverage is high, 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and technical resource 'CD-ROMs' with scope 'attached to a specific server'. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_server_volumes or get_server, clearly identifying its purpose without ambiguity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided in the description. The `filters` parameter note implies usage with filters (and the retry suggestion), but the main description gives only implied context that this is a standard list operation. No alternatives are named, though siblings exist.

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