liara_list_vms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List all virtual machines' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' means in context (e.g., accessible VMs vs. all in account). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. No extraneous details or redundancy are present.

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 list tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination strategy, or error conditions. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially given the server's complexity and many sibling tools.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a list operation. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like parameter interactions or defaults.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all virtual machines'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'liara_get_vm' (single VM) and 'liara_create_vm' (creation), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'liara_list_apps' or 'liara_list_disks' beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to similar list operations (e.g., paginated vs. filtered searches). With many sibling tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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