vast_list_placements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'List all VAST placements', which implies a read operation, but it does not mention pagination (limit/offset defaults), potential size of results, or any other behavioral traits. The schema documents parameters, but the description adds no extra context about how the listing behaves.

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, tightly crafted sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('List') and resource ('VAST placements'), followed by a concise definition in parentheses. Every element serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool does. It does not explain return values (no output schema exists) but gives the core purpose. Lacking annotations and with sibling tools like draft_list_placements, a brief note on pagination or the 'all' scope would improve completeness, but the current state is sufficient for a low-complexity tool.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'limit' and 'offset' have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully covers parameters. The description's 'List all' could conflict with the limit/offset defaulting, but the schema clarifies defaults.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'VAST placements', with a parenthetical definition ('assignments of VAST ad items to VAST zones'). This distinguishes it from related tools like vast_get_placement (single fetch) and vast_create_placement (creation), and the 'VAST' prefix disambiguates from the non-prefixed 'list_placements'.

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 alternatives. It does not mention that it lists all placements, nor does it direct users to vast_get_placement for a single placement or to list_placements (non-VAST) when appropriate. With many sibling list tools, the lack of explicit exclusions or alternatives leaves the agent to infer usage.

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