filter_vngs_by_tag

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

Without annotations, the description covers key behaviors: returns compact summaries by default, verbose mode for full configs, and parameter defaults. However, it does not mention potential side effects, safety, or error handling, which is acceptable for a read-like operation.

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 efficient: a single introductory sentence followed by a clear, bullet-style parameter list. No extraneous information; 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?

Given the complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: filtering criteria, cloud support, and result format. It could benefit from mentioning that the operation is read-only and non-destructive, but overall it is sufficient.

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 description provides thorough explanations for all 6 parameters, including default values, examples, and usage notes (e.g., tag_value matches any if empty, cloud defaults to aws). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds significant semantic value.

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?

Clearly states the tool filters VNGs by tag key and optionally value, specifying supported cloud providers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_vngs' or 'filter_clusters_by_tag', which may lead to ambiguity in selection.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_vngs' or 'filter_clusters_by_tag'. The description implies usage for tag-based filtering but lacks recommendations or exclusions.

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