ibmcloud_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'View or set' but does not reveal that setting likely persists a session state, whether parameters can be combined or are mutually exclusive, or what the command returns after a 'view' or 'set'. This is especially important for a state-mutating tool where side effects affect subsequent commands.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 tool is simple with four optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose but lacks behavioral details like return values or side effects, which would make it more complete for an agent. It is adequate but not rich.

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% as each parameter has a clear description ('Target Cloud Foundry org', etc.). The tool description repeats these terms without adding additional semantics, such as whether parameters are independent or how they interact. The baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and this description does not exceed it.

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 ('View or set') and enumerates the exact resource attributes (region, resource group, org, space), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on specific resources or list available regions.

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 for configuring the CLI's current working context (target), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context among many siblings provides some implicit differentiation, but no direct guidance is given.

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