cloud_insts_metr_ls

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

No annotations provided, yet the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as safety, idempotency, or rate limits. It is a read operation but lacks explicit assurance.

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?

Description is moderately structured with clear sections but contains some redundancy and could be more concise. The docstring format is functional but not optimally 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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return format, properly handle optional parameters like extra_headers, or provide comprehensive usage context. Gaps remain.

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 description provides a docstring-style list of all parameters with brief descriptions, adding semantics to the schema. The note adds significant context for project_id and region_id. However, descriptions are terse.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get instance metrics' and enumerates specific metric types (cpu, memory, network, disk). Sibling tools cover actions, flavors, images, etc., making this tool's purpose distinct.

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?

Description includes explicit note on resolving project_id and region_id via other tools, guiding when to use auxiliary calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid or what alternatives exist.

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