cloud_insts_flavs_ls

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

Describes pricing behavior for trial mode and disabled parameter default, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like read-only nature, error handling, or potential side effects. Without annotations, description carries full burden but is partially adequate.

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?

Key information is front-loaded (purpose, pricing note). The Args list and Note are organized but somewhat verbose, especially with extra_headers/query/body which are typical. Could be shortened without losing value.

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?

Covers most parameters but lacks descriptions for output, pagination, sorting, or error conditions. Given 10 parameters and no output schema, more detail on expected results and edge cases would improve completeness.

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?

Description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining each parameter in the Args list. However, there is inconsistency between described defaults (e.g., disabled default true) and schema defaults (null), reducing reliability. Extra parameters lack deep explanation.

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 states it retrieves a list of available instance flavors, which is clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like other list tools, though the name implies flavors.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use (to list flavors), includes details about include_prices and trial mode, and offers note on resolving project and region IDs. Lacks exclusion criteria or direct comparison to alternatives.

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