replica_list

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

The [READ] tag indicates a read-only operation, and the description lists the states returned. However, without annotations, the description carries full burden; it fails to disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the output is a list or single object. More context on behavior beyond the basic purpose is needed.

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 (two sentences for purpose and three args) and front-loaded with the [READ] tag and core function. Every sentence is informative without redundancy, achieving high efficiency for an agent parsing.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks details on return format, pagination, or error cases. It covers the basic what and how, but not enough for a fully informed agent decision, especially among many sibling tools.

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, the description adds essential meaning: 'application' is the serve application name, 'deployment' is the deployment name, and 'target' is an optional inference target defaulting to null. This clarifies the parameter semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could include format or constraints.

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 tool lists replica states (running/starting/draining) for a specific deployment, using a [READ] prefix. It identifies the resource ('replica states') and the action ('list'), and the examples of states provide concrete output expectations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deployment_status or scale actions.

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 by specifying required parameters (application, deployment) and optional target, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like serve_deployment_list or scale_replicas_up. No 'use when' or 'avoid' guidance is provided, limiting its utility for selection among many siblings.

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