image_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: base_vm_id optionally scopes snapshots, target comes from config.yaml with a default, and the tool lists the golden-image catalog. It does not describe return format or pagination, but with no output schema and strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. The 'Args:' section is useful and each line adds value. The '[READ]' tag is redundant given the readOnlyHint annotation, but it does not significantly harm the overall conciseness.

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 list tool with two optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and connection to pool_push_image. It does not describe the return value format, but the tool name and listing purpose make the outcome reasonably clear.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. base_vm_id is described as optionally scoping snapshots, and target is specified as coming from config.yaml with a default. This goes beyond the bare schema and gives the agent the necessary semantic meaning.

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 instant-clone base VMs and snapshots.' It further distinguishes the tool by labeling it 'the golden-image catalog for pool_push_image,' which clarifies its role relative to the sibling tool pool_push_image and other list tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: it is the catalog for pool_push_image, implying the agent should consult it to select a golden image before pushing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for typical usage.

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