list_vm_templates

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: what these templates are for (pool base images), which pool clone modes consume them, and how the returned IDs are used downstream. It does not mention scope, permissions, or pagination.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool lists, followed by the applicability constraint and the next-step instruction. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, applicability, and next step for a simple two-parameter read tool. Minor gap: no note on scope of listing (per-datacenter vs per-vCenter) or whether results can be empty.

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% (vcenter_id and datacenter_id both documented with sources and optionality), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb + resource ('List VM templates available in vCenter') plus the intended purpose ('use as pool base images'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_base_vms / list_base_vm_snapshots, which an agent could easily confuse with templates, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Clear downstream guidance: 'Use the template_id in create_desktop_pool provisioning_settings instead of parent_vm_id' names the consuming tool and the field alternative. It also scopes applicability to FULL_CLONE or LINKED_CLONE pools. No explicit when-not-to-use case is given, but the routing context is strong.

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