vs_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context by listing output fields (name, VIP, enabled state, health score) and noting the optional controller parameter. No pagination or filtering details, but largely sufficient given annotations.

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?

Three sentences front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then parameter description. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Tool is simple with one optional parameter and output schema exists. Description covers purpose, when to use, and parameter details, fully meeting the needs for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, but description explains the controller parameter: 'AVI controller name from config (optional, uses default).' This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, clarifying origin and optionality.

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?

Description starts with '[READ] List all Virtual Services with name, VIP, enabled state, and health score,' clearly stating it's a read operation and specifying the resource and returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling vs_status by noting its use for overview before drilling in.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this for an overview before drilling into a specific VS with vs_status,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool and naming an alternative for deeper detail.

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