cleanuparr_list_cf_instances

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

The `readOnlyHint` annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. However, the phrase 'tracked scores' adds a small behavioral detail but does not clarify what 'tracked' means (e.g., whether instances without scores are excluded). No additional behavioral traits such as pagination or scoping are disclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the action and resource. It avoids extraneous words and is appropriately sized for a no-parameter list operation.

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?

While the tool is simple (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the ambiguity around 'instances' and 'tracked scores' leaves the agent with incomplete context. The description does not clarify what type of instances or what 'tracked scores' qualifies, making it insufficiently complete for a tool that has several similarly named siblings.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation responsibility. The description mentions 'instances and quality profiles with tracked scores,' which gives a high-level sense of what the output relates to, but since there are no parameters, no further parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies a resource ('instances and quality profiles with tracked scores'), but the noun 'instances' is ambiguous without context—especially since siblings like `list_arr_instances` and `list_cf_scores` exist. It does not clearly differentiate the tool from these alternatives, so the purpose is only partially clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools, such as `list_arr_instances` or `list_cf_scores`. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to guess based on naming conventions.

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