iso_list_custom_isos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the purpose and says 'Returns: List of custom ISO images', which adds no behavioral information such as pagination, filtering, authentication, or rate limits. It does not disclose any side effects (though likely a read-only operation).

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a minimal return description. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (no params, simple list) and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks guidance on how it differs from iso_list_isos, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong tool. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is 100% (trivially), and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline of 4 for 0 params applies since there is no potential for misunderstanding.

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 the resource 'custom ISO images (user-uploaded)'. This distinguishes it from iso_list_public_isos, but it does not explicitly differentiate from iso_list_isos (which might be the general list). The purpose is clear and specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like iso_list_isos or iso_list_public_isos. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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