list_vms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'List' aligns with expected behavior. The description adds little beyond confirming the read-only nature; it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., empty device) or behavior with invalid IDs.

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, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous details. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the simple input (device_id required, optional platforms) and annotations confirming safety, the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. It could mention output format, but it's not critical for a straightforward list operation.

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?

Both parameters have clear descriptions in the input schema (device_id and platforms with enum). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for 100% coverage.

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 'List all VMs/containers on a device' clearly specifies the action (list), the resource (VMs/containers), and the scope (on a device). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_vm_status or list_proxmox_resources by focusing specifically on listing VMs/containers per device.

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 it (when you need a list of VMs/containers on a specific device). However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives like list_proxmox_resources, leaving some ambiguity for agents.

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