oci_compute_list_shapes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It reveals that the listing includes Always Free shapes and gives specific examples, which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or permission requirements, leaving gaps for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, immediately communicating the tool's core function. The extra detail about Always Free shapes adds value without bloat. No wasted words.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main purpose and adds specific context about Always Free shapes. However, it omits any mention of the optional parameters, though these are documented in the schema. Given the low complexity, this is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for its two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., how compartment_id or limit affect results), but it doesn't need to because the schema descriptions already cover semantics. It does not detract from clarity.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available compute shapes'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like oci_compute_list_instances by focusing on shapes rather than instances. It also adds useful detail about Always Free shapes, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning use cases, exclusions, or relationships to other compute tools. The reader is left to infer that this is for retrieving shape options.

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