List VMM topologies

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. It states the tool runs 'vmm-api ls' and lists all topologies, which implies a non-destructive read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or describe the output format, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('List all network topologies') and then provides the implementation method and usage context. Both sentences are concise and necessary, with no filler or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity—no parameters, no output schema, no sibling tools—the description fully covers what the tool does, how it does it, and when to use it. It provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 the schema is empty and there is no need for parameter explanations. Based on the guideline '0 params = baseline 4', this score is appropriate. The description adds value by indicating that the output provides names/IDs, but that is output semantics, not parameter semantics.

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 tool lists all network topologies known to VMM, using the specific verb 'List' and resource 'network topologies known to VMM'. It also mentions the underlying command 'vmm-api ls', which adds precise context and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly instructs using this tool to discover existing topology names/IDs before creating, inspecting, or modifying one. This is clear when-to-use guidance that helps the agent decide when to call this tool, even though there are no sibling tools to differentiate from.

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