list_vm_groups

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by describing the exact return envelope, the structure of boot_order, runtime discovery of the served CRD version, pagination/completion behavior, and the teaching error on older Supervisors. It fully discloses behavioral traits an agent needs to interpret results.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and every subsequent sentence adds meaningful detail about return shape, version behavior, and error handling. No filler or redundant rephrasing of the schema is present.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the returned fields, pagination semantics, CRD version behavior, and boot_order structure. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret the response correctly.

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 100%, with both target and namespace already documented. The description adds general context but little parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with '[READ] List VirtualMachineGroup objects and their bootOrder in a Namespace', naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly identifies the VM Service CRD and Supervisor K8s API, making it unambiguous what the tool does and distinct from sibling 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: the tool operates in a specific Namespace and targets Supervisor VM Service groups. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the namespace scoping and the version-related note about older Supervisors provide practical usage guidance.

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