vca_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the notable 'capped' behavior, which is useful, but does not explain the cap's size, ordering, or what is included in each listed item. This is partial transparency rather than complete.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the key caveat ('capped'). There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource, the action, and a notable limitation. The only gap is the unspecified cap and return format, but the simple nature of the operation keeps this from being a major 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the calibration baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the empty schema is fully consistent with the tool's simple function.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('every VCA in the project'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vca_create, vca_info, and vca_volume by signaling an enumeration operation rather than a mutation or single-item lookup.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to enumerate all VCAs in the project. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools like vca_info or vca_volume, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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