list_network_interface_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the live-verified 400 failure mode when neither ID is supplied, and the fact that each result's id maps to network_interface_card_id consumed by pool/farm creation.

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?

Three short blocks, first sentence front-loads the core action. The embedded JSON snippet for the nics array is slightly bulky but earns its place by showing the exact field name to reuse. Minimal waste overall.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still goes further by tying results to create_desktop_pool / create_rdsh_farm. Preconditions are fully covered, though it does not mention ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the either/or requirement for base_vm_id and vm_template_id. The description restates that requirement rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the network interface cards (NICs)') and immediately narrows the scope to base VMs or VM templates. No sibling tool lists NICs, and the qualifier makes it unmistakable which entities are covered.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: Horizon requires either base_vm_id (instant-clone pools/farms, optionally with base_snapshot_id) or vm_template_id (full-clone pools), and notes that omitting both returns a 400. It also points to the downstream consumers (create_desktop_pool / create_rdsh_farm). It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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