List VMs & containers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes a read operation (list) but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, pagination, or response size. The description is adequate for a simple listing but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main action. Every word contributes, and there is no redundancy.

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 simple listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It specifies the returned fields and filter options. Could mention pagination or sorting if applicable, but not strictly necessary.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal value by restating the filter options. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 (QEMU VMs and LXC containers across the cluster) and specifies the returned fields (VMID, type, node, status, live CPU/memory). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'guest_status' by focusing on cluster-wide listing.

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 implies usage: when you need an overview of all guests with optional filters. It does not explicitly exclude cases or name alternatives, but the context (siblings are mostly action tools) makes it clear enough.

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