Laufende Virtualisierungen

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: without a serial the entire fleet is scanned and only devices with active restores are returned, clarifying the filtering semantics of the call.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the scoping rule. No filler, though it is terse enough that it could say a bit more about the includeHidden/client interplay.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the serial-absent filtering rule, and result scope. It stops short of describing the shape of returned items or pagination, which is a minor gap given annotations already carry the safety profile.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the default fleet-wide behavior when `serial` is omitted — meaning that is not captured by the schema itself. This adds genuine parameter-level value for the serial argument.

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 names a specific resource — running VM restores/virtualizations ("Laufende VM-Restores/Virtualisierungen") — which is a distinct concept from sibling listings like list-devices or list-alerts. It is clear what the tool enumerates, though it does not explicitly name any sibling it is not, leaving differentiation implicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that omitting the serial checks the whole fleet hints at the narrow-vs-broad query modes, but there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this tool over alternatives such as get-backup-health-summary or list-devices.

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