clouds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (endpoints + which cloud is default) and the important routing semantic that nothing is routed to a default the agent did not choose. It stops short of stating failure modes or what happens with zero clouds configured, so it falls just short of complete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the usage rule, with zero filler. Every clause adds information an agent needs before deciding to call it.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by describing the return content (clouds, endpoints, default). Combined with the routing warning it gives an agent everything needed to call and interpret this zero-param tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The empty schema is consistent with a pure enumeration call.

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 clouds this daemon can reach') and even names the payload fields the agent will get back (endpoints, default marker). It is immediately distinguishable from the many sibling verbs like share, pull, and cloud_recall, which it explicitly contrasts itself with.

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 an explicit precondition: 'Ask this before any cloud verb in an unfamiliar setup.' It then names the exact alternative tools that require a named cloud (share / pull / cloud_recall and the initiative verbs) and the condition under which they require it (more than one cloud configured).

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