cloud_rgns_ls

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 discloses key behaviors: limit defaults to 100 with max 1000, offset skips records, order_by uses field/direction, product filtering, show_volume_types modifies output, and parameters for extra headers/query/body/timeout. However, it omits higher-level details like idempotency, safety, or rate limits.

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 structured as a clear bullet list with a one-line purpose. It is reasonably concise, though some parameter details (e.g., limit defaults) could be more succinctly integrated. Overall, it communicates effectively without excessive verbosity.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers parameter behaviors but lacks explanation of return values, pagination beyond limit/offset, error handling, and authentication needs. This gap reduces completeness for an agent seeking full context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates thoroughly. It explains the meaning and constraints for limit, offset, order_by, product, show_volume_types, extra_headers, extra_query, extra_body, and timeout, adding substantial value beyond the schema's type/enum definitions.

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 regions', providing a specific verb ('list') and resource ('regions'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cloud_rgns_get (which retrieves a single region) and other list operations acting on different resources.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cloud_rgns_get or other list tools. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclude conditions.

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