list_isos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the action 'List' and says nothing about read-only guarantees, permission requirements, or output structure. With zero behavioral context, the description fails to inform the agent of anything beyond the basic operation.

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, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the key action and object, making it immediately scannable and appropriate for a simple tool.

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?

The description lacks essential context: there is no output schema to explain return values, and the description itself does not mention what fields are returned, whether storage is an optional filter, or how this tool relates to ISO management siblings. The absence of any usage or behavior details makes the description incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 fully describes both parameters (node with type/description, storage with type/description/optional), so the description does not need to repeat them. However, the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as how the storage parameter filters the listing, which is a missed opportunity to enrich parameter understanding.

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 'List ISO files on a Proxmox node' uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's function immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_templates and list_backups by clearly targeting ISO files on a specific node.

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 vs. alternatives, nor does it mention the optional storage parameter for filtering results. It also does not reference related ISO tools like download_iso or delete_iso, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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