cloud_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's safety is known. The description adds that it reports which operations are enabled, which is a helpful behavioral detail, but it doesn't elaborate on the expected output format, variability, or any other side effects. With annotations covering the core safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and effective.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the key outputs (cloud, region, project, enabled operations) and the context ('these tools are pointed at'). The low complexity of the tool doesn't warrant further elaboration.

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 no parameters, so the description has no need to explain them. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 what the tool does: identify the cloud, region, and project the tools are pointed at, and report enabled operations. It uses a specific verb ('identify') and resource ('cloud, region, project') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on individual resources rather than the environment.

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?

It provides clear context on what the tool is for (checking the environment) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The distinction from siblings is implied by the focus on environment-level info, but no specific exclusions are stated.

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