Query Cloud Infrastructure

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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns 'Terraform code and CLI commands ready to execute,' which clarifies the output. It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It contains no extraneous information, though it is slightly dense. Could be improved by breaking into two sentences, but currently concise and informative.

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 complexity (nested parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to structure requirements/constraints, what the return format looks like (e.g., multiple options, pricing details), or any pagination/limits. Additional detail is needed for the agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0% description coverage and includes nested objects (requirements, constraints, output). The description only mentions 'compute, storage, database, networking' (mapping to intent) and vaguely 'Terraform code' (output). It fails to explain the meaning of requirements fields like vcpus, memory_gb, or constraints like max_monthly_budget, which are critical for correct usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it queries cloud infrastructure needs and returns the best option across providers with Terraform code and CLI commands. It distinguishes from sibling tools like synlake_estimate (cost estimation) and synlake_providers (list providers) by focusing on querying specific infrastructure requirements.

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 implies usage for obtaining infrastructure options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or alternative scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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