list_btp_instances

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

The description discloses that the tool lists all instances shows states (SUCCEEDED, FAILED, IN_PROGRESS). It does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention limitations like pagination or rate limits. Given no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states core purpose, then defines instance, shows states, and provides examples. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage examples, and state information. The output schema handles return values. However, the lack of any parameter explanation leaves a gap in completeness, as the agent may not know how to filter by service name.

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 one parameter (service_name) with no description in the schema (0% coverage) and no explanation in the tool description. The agent must infer its filtering purpose from the name alone, risking misuse or underutilization.

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 verb 'lists' and the resource 'service instances', with specific scope 'in your BTP subaccount'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_btp_services (services) and get_btp_destinations (destinations) by focusing on instances.

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 provides explicit example queries to guide usage, such as checking for existing instances or failed ones. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for different needs (e.g., listing services), leaving some ambiguity.

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