List load balancer instances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuine behavioral nuance — that the result set includes assignable VMs, not only already-assigned ones — which is not obvious from the name. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering, so it adds modest value above annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin — conciseness here borders on under-specification.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: the interplay with the `applied` filter, the pagination/`pageSize` default behavior, and where ruleId comes from are all unaddressed. With no output schema, it also does not hint at the returned VM shape.

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 100%, so all four parameters (including page/pageSize defaults and the `applied` filter) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'assigned (or assignable)' phrasing loosely explains what the `applied` filter toggles, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 gives a concrete verb ('List') and a precisely scoped resource ('VMs assigned (or assignable) to a load balancer rule'), which implicitly separates it from the generic list_vms sibling. It stops short of naming any alternative tool or explaining the rule-scoped relationship explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the purpose statement: no mention of when to prefer this over list_vms, no prerequisite that a ruleId must come from list_load_balancer_rules, and no note about when to set the `applied` filter. The agent must infer all routing decisions.

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