List Images

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the basic behavioral profile. The description adds semantic scope (OS images for new Cubes) but does not disclose additional behavior such as output format, pagination, regional availability, or how the images relate to create_cube. This is acceptable for a simple zero-parameter tool but adds limited value 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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope.

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, read-only listing tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough. It states what is listed (OS images) and for what purpose (new Cubes), which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in this simple context.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameter space. With no parameters, the description does not need to clarify parameter meaning; the baseline score of 4 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'), a distinct resource ('OS images'), and a clear scope ('for new Cubes'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_cubes, list_regions, and list_snapshots. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and what it returns without opening the schema.

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 implies the tool is used to see images that can be used when creating a Cube, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention it as a prerequisite for create_cube. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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