ibmcloud_cf_scale

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the high-level action without disclosing what scaling does (e.g., updates the app's instances/memory/disk), whether it triggers a restart or rolling update, or any side effects on running applications.

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, clear sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the primary action. It is concise, though slightly under-specified, it earns the score for avoiding unnecessary verbosity.

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?

With no output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks important context such as prerequisites (e.g., CF CLI login and target organization/space), expected outcomes, or any limitations. Even with a well-structured parameter schema, the description alone is too sparse to fully guide an agent.

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 each parameter (disk, name, memory, instances) is already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but does not elevate the score above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scale') and resource ('Cloud Foundry application'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cf_push, cf_start, and cf_stop. It doesn't explicitly mention that scaling affects instances/memory/disk, but the schema covers those details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of preconditions (e.g., being logged in, targeting a CF org/space) or exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the name.

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