List Images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the images relate to new Cube creation; it says nothing about result set size, ordering, or whether availability varies by region/plan, which is the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the resource is named first and the purpose trails it. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal economy.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety, this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description is the only source of information about what an image record contains (name, OS, version) or how many might be returned. That leaves a modest but real gap.

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 applies at 4; the schema has nothing the description could clarify. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters or filters that do not exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List available OS images') and adds the scoping purpose ('for new Cubes'), which tells an agent this is a provisioning-catalog lookup rather than a general asset listing. No sibling tool lists images, so no explicit differentiation is required, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 only implied by the phrase 'for new Cubes' — an agent can infer this should be called before create_cube, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of whether results are filterable, and no note about staleness or region-specificity.

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