image_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the behavioral context that this lists the golden-image catalog specifically for pool_push_image, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether snapshots are returned hierarchically, whether base_vm_id filtering changes the shape, or pagination/limits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key contextual link to pool_push_image. Zero waste, and the [READ] prefix is a useful signal. Every word earns its place.

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 2 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not describing the return shape (e.g., whether it returns both base VMs and snapshots in one list or separately), but with no output schema and a simple list operation, this is a minor omission.

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 100%, so both parameters (target and base_vm_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the context that base_vm_id scopes snapshots to one base VM, which aligns with the schema. It doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('instant-clone base VMs and snapshots'), and explicitly frames it as the golden-image catalog for pool_push_image. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like machine_list or pool_list, and the [READ] prefix reinforces the read-only nature.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need the golden-image catalog for pool_push_image. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the reference to pool_push_image provides clear context for when this tool is relevant. Sibling tools like machine_list and pool_list are distinct enough that an agent can infer the appropriate choice.

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