list_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a harmless read, but it states nothing about read-only guarantees, permissions, or whether the operation has side effects; it only expands on the returned data shape.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is identified before the returned fields. Slightly loose phrasing ('and what is mounted now') but every clause contributes information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented here, and the zero-parameter signature makes the description nearly complete. The remaining gap is the unexplained relationship to the mount/unmount siblings, i.e., whether newly mounted media shows up in this listing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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?

A specific verb ('List') plus a precisely scoped resource ('images stored on the KVM's internal storage'), and it enumerates the three things returned: images, free space, and current mounts. It is distinguishable from the sibling usb_drive_list by the 'internal storage' scoping, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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 explicit when-to-use statement or named alternatives, but the listing scope ('what is mounted now') implies its role as the discovery step preceding mount_media_url/mount_media_storage/unmount_media. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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