cloud_initiatives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a critical behavioral trait: a cloud initiative is INDEPENDENT of the local one with the same name (same name, different contents). It does not cover auth/permission needs or the exact return shape, but for a read-oriented listing this is solid disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then usage, then the independence caveat. Slightly dense with backticked references and a nested parenthetical, but each sentence earns its place.

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 purpose, usage routing, and the key independence semantic for a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool. Return format is only implied ('how many nodes each has shared'), but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 single `cloud` parameter already has 100% schema description coverage ('Which cloud to ask. Required when several are configured.'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the cloud scope but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the initiatives a cloud holds') and adds the returned detail ('how many nodes each has shared'). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling `initiatives` (local) and from `clouds` (which lists reachable clouds), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('use it when you don't know what the team has, before `cloud_recall` on one of them') and names the alternative it precedes. The closing parenthetical also routes the agent between `clouds` and this tool, covering both alternatives.

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