oci_iam_list_compartments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only list operation and adds the 'tenancy hierarchy' scope, but it does not disclose pagination, return format, or whether the listing is recursive through the hierarchy.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 fully described parameters, the description is adequate. It could clarify whether it lists immediate children or all descendants, but the schema's compartment_id default and the 'tenancy hierarchy' phrasing give enough context for typical usage.

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 fully describes both parameters (limit and compartment_id), providing 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'tenancy hierarchy' slightly reinforces the parent-child relationship but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 compartments within the tenancy hierarchy, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling IAM list tools like users, groups, and policies by naming the resource type.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the resource type makes it self-evident for enumeration tasks. It lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving usage largely implied.

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