OCI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation (implied read-only) and mentions what information is returned, but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the list is filtered/sorted. The return format description is helpful but incomplete.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 simple list operation with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning adequately. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context (like pagination, filtering options, or error handling) to be fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description provides essential semantic context: it explains that compartment_id is 'OCID of the compartment to list VCNs from', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond just its name. This adequately compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List all Virtual Cloud Networks'), identifies the resource (VCNs), and specifies the scope ('in a compartment'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_vcn' (singular retrieval) and other list tools by focusing on VCNs specifically.

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 usage context by mentioning 'in a compartment' and the required compartment_id parameter, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_vcn' or other list tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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