list_os_images

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent with those. It adds helpful scope detail via 'every' and the parenthesized output fields, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or any special list behavior. This is adequate but not extensive.

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 front-loaded sentence: it states the action, resource, and output attributes with no filler words. It earns its place completely.

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 zero-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description adequately names both the scope and return fields, so an agent can call it correctly. It stops short of full completeness by not mentioning pagination or clarifying when the sibling 'list_vps_available_os' is more appropriate.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries no input ambiguity. The description reinforces that the list is unfiltered with the word 'every', which is sufficient for a no-argument tool.

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 names the verb and resource: it 'List every operating system image available to deploy a VPS' and names output fields. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like list_vps_available_os or list_available_os_for_volume.

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 phrase 'available to deploy a VPS' implies the intended use case is selecting an OS image for VPS deployment. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing, despite the similar sibling list_vps_available_os existing.

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