cloud_placegrps_ls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only covers parameter resolution but does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether pagination exists, error handling, or the nature of the response. The description lacks transparency about the tool's behavior beyond parameter requirements.

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 approximately 100 words, structured with an 'Args:' section listing parameters. While it contains necessary resolution guidance, it is somewhat verbose with repetitive notes. A more concise version could separate the core purpose from parameter details, but it is acceptably structured.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description only addresses parameter resolution and does not cover the output format, pagination, error handling, or typical usage scenarios. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves important gaps.

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 compensate. It adds valuable meaning for the required parameters (project_id and region_id) by explaining their resolution logic. However, optional parameters (extra_headers, extra_query, extra_body, timeout) are only listed with their names and types, adding no semantic value beyond the schema. The description partially compensates for the required parameters but not for the optional ones.

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 starts with 'List placement groups', which clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'cloud_placegrps_get' (for getting a specific group) or 'cloud_placegrps_new' (for creating). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on resolving project_id and region_id, including fallbacks to default project/region and referral to other tools (cloud.projects.list, cloud.projects.get, cloud.regions.list, cloud.regions.get). This helps the agent use the tool correctly. However, it does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cloud_placegrps_get' or when not to use it.

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