nanokvm_list_images

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content ('List of available images with file paths and metadata') but does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether the listing reflects live device state. For a simple read-only list, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. It states the action and the output format immediately, making it highly scannable and appropriately sized.

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, an output schema, and a straightforward single-purpose role, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it returns, and the sibling tools provide enough surrounding context for selection.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none, and it correctly omits any parameter-related detail.

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 states the tool's function: 'List available ISO images on the NanoKVM device.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ISO images'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nanokvm_mount_iso and nanokvm_unmount_iso by focusing on enumeration rather than manipulation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. However, the verb 'List' implies it is the go-to for enumerating images before mounting, and the sibling set clarifies the distinction. Still, explicit guidance is missing.

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