iso_list_public_isos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states the read-only nature ('List') and the filtering behavior from all ISOs, which adds some context beyond the name. It does not disclose pagination, authentication, or other edge-case behavior, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool this is a reasonable minimum.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and scope. The 'Returns' line is redundant with the first sentence, but overall the definition is compact and does not waste meaningful words.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and filter context. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema make it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List public ISO images' and adds the scope qualifier 'filtered from all ISOs.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like iso_list_isos and iso_list_custom_isos, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrasing 'filtered from all ISOs' implies this tool is for obtaining only public ISOs rather than all or custom ISOs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over iso_list_isos or iso_list_custom_isos, leaving that to inference.

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