cloud_insts_ifaces_ls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List' without confirming it is read-only, and does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or limitations (e.g., pagination). This is minimal disclosure for a non-destructive operation.

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 starts with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a parameter list with mostly tautological definitions (e.g., 'extra_headers: Send extra headers'), and a long note. The note is valuable but verbose. It is adequately structured but could be more concise.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description explains how to resolve the key parameters but does not describe the output format or error behavior. It is sufficient for basic use but lacks completeness for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and return values.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides basic definitions for extra_headers, extra_query, extra_body, and timeout. Crucially, the note explains that project_id and region_id should be numeric and how to resolve names via other tools. However, instance_id lacks any description beyond being required.

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 'List all network interfaces attached to the specified instance,' which specifies the verb (list), the resource (network interfaces), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cloud_insts_ifaces_att (attach) and cloud_insts_ifaces_det (detach).

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 includes a long note on resolving project_id and region_id, which helps with correct parameter usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusionary guidance. The purpose is implied but not fully contextualized among siblings.

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