list_vms

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.

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 a single short sentence, making it very concise. However, it omits important details that could be included without sacrificing conciseness, such as output behavior or filter specifics.

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?

With 8 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should provide more context on how filters work and what the output contains. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description lacks completeness for a listing tool with many filters.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description only says 'optional inventory filters' without explaining parameter formats, relationships, or behavior (e.g., whether parameters accept multiple values or wildcards). The titles in the schema are insufficient, and the description does not compensate.

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 'VMs', and mentions optional filters, which aligns with the schema. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that list specific sub-resources (e.g., list_vm_disks) or similar list operations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vm or list_hosts. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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