cdp_list_provision_limits

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 states it's a 'fetch' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema (which should detail return values), the description's job is lighter. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks context on authentication, error handling, and usage scenarios. For a simple read operation with output schema, it's minimally adequate but could benefit from more behavioral context.

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 mentions 'tenant' which aligns with the 'tenant_id' parameter in the schema, adding some context. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond the name (e.g., what happens if tenant_id is null, format expectations, or default behavior). With one parameter and no schema descriptions, it provides minimal but not comprehensive 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('provisioning limits for all services of a tenant'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_provision_limit' (singular) or 'cdp_list_provision_services', which might list services rather than their limits.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when it's appropriate (e.g., for capacity planning), or contrast it with similar tools like 'cdp_get_provision_limit' (which might fetch limits for a specific service).

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