list_vms

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists VMs and returns a YAML string, but lacks details on behavior when no filters are given (implies all VMs), performance, pagination, or permissions. Adequate but minimal.

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 concise with a clear header and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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?

Given no required parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, filters, and return format. Missing details like default behavior (list all VMs) are minor but don't hinder understanding.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds meaning for all three parameters: provider filters by 'aws' or 'azure', tenant by alias, region with examples. This compensates well, though it could specify case sensitivity or invalid values.

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 'List all virtual machines across configured cloud providers,' which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like get_vm_details (details of a specific VM) and list_providers (list providers), making its purpose distinct.

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 mentions optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_vm_details instead). The context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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