vs_list

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds operational behavior beyond that: it returns every VS in one call, cannot be paged or filtered, and intentionally omits health scores. This is exactly the contextual disclosure an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: a clear purpose, a compact summary of returned data and limitations, and an explicit next-step recommendation. The information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and a clear sibling relationship, this description is complete. It covers return contents, the all-at-once nature, limitations, and the recommended follow-up tool, so an agent can choose and call it correctly without opening the schema.

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 only parameter, 'controller', is fully described in the input schema with its default and meaning. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The baseline 3 applies since no additional parameter-level nuance is provided.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Virtual Services on the AVI Controller.' It then enumerates the returned fields (Name, Enabled, VIP, short UUID), so an agent knows precisely what this tool does. It also distinguishes itself from vs_status via the final sentence.

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 places this tool in a workflow: 'Use this before drilling into one VS with vs_status.' It also states the key limitations—no pagination, no filtering, no health score—so an agent knows when not to rely on it and can route to the more specific sibling.

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