List Edge Computes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the '[READ]' marker and HTTP GET reference add no meaningful behavioral context. The description does not disclose pagination behavior, default page size, auth requirements, rate limits, or what the response contains. Beyond annotations, it contributes essentially nothing about how the tool behaves.

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 compact line that front-loads the read nature, the source API, the operation, and the parameter list. No sentence is wasted, and an agent can scan it quickly. It is appropriately sized for a simple list endpoint.

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 parameterized list endpoint with no output schema and no parameter descriptions anywhere, the definition is too thin. It omits filtering semantics, pagination defaults, and even a hint about the shape of the returned collection. An agent could invoke it, but would have to guess at most operational details.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the four parameters, but it only lists their names (application, q, page, per_page). It does not explain what 'application' filters by, what 'q' searches, or what the pagination bounds mean. Naming the parameters adds almost no semantics beyond what the schema's property keys already show.

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 and resource — list edge computes — and grounds it in the underlying HTTP operation GET /edge-computes. It is immediately distinguishable from the singular get_edge_compute sibling by the word 'list', though it never explicitly contrasts the two. A clear purpose, but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 only says the query parameters are optional; it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_edge_compute, list_edge_routes, or the other list/get siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing conditions are provided. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and endpoint.

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