cdp_list_provision_instances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool lists instances with filters, lacking any disclosure about behavioral traits such as pagination (implied by offset/limit parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only. This is inadequate for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates key filters. There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise for a list operation.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, schema coverage 0%, but with an output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral context, doesn't explain all parameters, and doesn't mention the output schema's existence or what the tool returns. For a list tool with multiple filters and pagination, more detail is needed.

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 lists optional filters (active, status, provision_name, requested_by), which covers 4 of the 7 parameters. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and it omits tenant_id, offset, and limit without explaining their purpose or relationship to the listing operation. This partial coverage fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('List') and resource ('provisioned instances'), making the purpose evident. It also mentions optional filters, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list tools (e.g., cdp_list_unlinked_provision_instances), which would require a 5.

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 mentions optional filters but doesn't specify scenarios for their use, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without any context for selection among sibling tools, this is minimal guidance.

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