oci_compute_list_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states it shows VM details (shape, state, availability domain), but doesn't disclose pagination behavior or the impact of the limit parameter, which could mislead an agent expecting 'all' instances without any limit.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no redundant wording. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the returned details but omits pagination or limit semantics, which would be useful for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the compartment context. No additional parameter semantics are provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 compute instances in a compartment, with a specific verb (List) and resource (compute instances). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_instance (single) and list_shapes (shapes) by focusing on instances and mentioning returned 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to list instances in a compartment), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, the scope is well-defined, making the usage obvious among siblings.

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