list_ida_instances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds contextual details by specifying that it returns a JSON list with ports and database info, including an example response. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the output structure and the MCP-plugin filter, but it does not discuss auth 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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then provides a compact return description and example. The example is useful though slightly verbose; overall it is well-structured and 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?

Given the empty input schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the scope, return format, and an example. The main gap is the lack of when-to-use guidance against sibling tools, but for a simple lister this is minor.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4 per the rubric. The schema and description need not document parameter meaning.

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 (list), resource (running IDA instances), and filter (with MCP plugin enabled). It clearly distinguishes a discovery operation from sibling tools like check_ida_connection or get_ida_database_info, which act on a single instance.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over check_ida_connection or that it should be used before attempting to connect. The usage is only implied by the verb 'list'.

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