list_instances

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes return fields and optional filtering. It implies a read-only operation without side effects, which is appropriate for listing instances.

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?

Description is two sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose: listing instances. Every sentence adds value.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description details what is returned. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which is a minor gap. Otherwise, it is complete for a simple listing without complex behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds that filtering by tags can be 'one or more' and filters by capability are specific values (logs, traces, metrics), which adds marginal context beyond the schema.

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 lists configured OpenObserve instances and returns specific fields (ID, name, URL, capabilities, tags). This is distinct from sibling tools like search_logs or list_streams, which have different purposes.

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 specifies it lists instances available to the server, implying use for discovery. It does not explicitly exclude when not to use or name alternatives, but in context of siblings, its purpose is clear.

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