List virtual media devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations, including the exact return object shape (manager_uri, virtual_media) and how lists are wrapped ({items, total, truncated}), plus a concrete example. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three compact, purposeful sentences: one for purpose, one for return format, and one for a usage example. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool 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?

For a simple, read-only list tool with zero required parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, output structure, and a usage example. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without needing further documentation.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (endpoint name, manager URI). The description adds a concrete example using manager_uri with a realistic path format, which helps agents understand the expected value. This lifts it beyond the baseline 3 for 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource ('VirtualMedia resources for a manager'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_systems and list_chassis. It also states the operational purpose ('inspect mounted images and media state'), which makes the tool's function 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to inspect mounted images and media state of a manager. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among similar list_* tools.

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