media_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful field-level context about what is inspected (ISO paths, controller location, power state), but does not mention per-VM scoping or any behavioral constraints beyond that.

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 no wasted words. It efficiently enumerates the relevant media attributes an agent would want from a 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?

The tool is simple and has both annotations and an output schema, so the description need not explain return structure. However, it omits parameter semantics and does not clarify how this differs from media_mount/media_eject, leaving some gaps for correct tool selection.

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?

There is one required parameter, vm_name, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what vm_name refers to, its expected format, or whether it is a name or identifier, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a well-defined resource set (VM DVD drives, mounted ISO paths, controller locations, generation, power state). It is clearly a read/inspection operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like media_mount or media_eject.

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 implied by the read-only listing verb, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus media_mount, media_eject, or vm_get. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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