list_virtual_machines

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

The description indicates a read-only operation that returns data, which is sufficient given no annotations exist. It could mention that no modifications are made, but the verb 'list' implies non-destructive behavior.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no parameters and an output schema (likely covering the return values mentioned), the description provides sufficient context. It explicitly states what is returned, aligning with expected output.

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 description does not need to add parameter information since the schema is empty. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description meets it without redundancy.

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 ('Virtual Machine Manager guests') and what is returned ('state and resource allocation'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_vm_state.

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 clearly states what the tool does but does not provide any guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or context for choosing this tool over others like list_containers.

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