list_base_vms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it lists VMs but does not clarify whether it only lists VMs that are eligible as base images (e.g., powered off, not in use), whether it is a read-only operation, or any filtering logic. It does not describe the output format or any side effects. This is a gap for a tool that will be used to inform creation decisions.

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 sentence with no fluff loss or padding. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the 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?

Given the tool has only 2 parametersatine with clear schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details on the return value structure (though an output schema exists), and important eligibility criteria for base images are omitted. An agent might struggle to understand exactly which VMs are included without further context. This is adequate but with clear gaps in behavioral expectations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters clearly (vcenter_id and datacenter_id). However, the description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not clarify the meaning of 'base images' in parameter context or how the datacenter filter affects results. With high coverage, baseline is 3, but the description adds no value about parameter usage beyond the schema, so a 2 is warranted for the complete absence of supplementary guidance.

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 clearly states the verb ('List'), resource ('VMs in vCenter'), and the specific purpose ('can be used as base images for instant clone pools/farms'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vm_templates or list_virtual_centers, though it could be more explicit about why this differs from list_vm_templates.

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 usage for selecting base images for instant clone pools/farms, which provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_vm_templates or list_base_vm_snapshots, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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