kvm_list_devices

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It explicitly labels the operation '(read tier)', conveying non-mutating behavior, and lists the output fields. For a zero-parameter list command, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure, though it does not mention failure modes or output formatting.

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?

One compact sentence with a parenthetical: the action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the output fields. Every element carries information and there is no filler.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description names exactly what the agent receives and flags the operation as read-only. Nothing essential is missing for invoking this tool correctly.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no undocumented inputs require compensation.

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 an explicit verb and resource: 'List fleet devices' and enumerates the returned fields (id, driver, label, capabilities, active). This makes the operation unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling tools like kvm_select_device or kvm_status.

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 a read/list use case but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It is clear enough for a trivial list operation, but no guidance is given about using it before device selection or how it differs from kvm_status.

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