hcloud_list_agencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a definition of the resource and says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether listings span the whole account or a single domain/project.

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?

A single six-word fragment with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the fragment form leaves room for one clarifying clause about scope.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient, and the 'trust relationships' gloss genuinely helps. What is missing is any hint of the listing scope (account vs. domain vs. project) or output shape, which matters in a catalog this large.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema bears no explanatory burden and the description has no parameter semantics to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (IAM agencies), and the parenthetical 'trust relationships' disambiguates an otherwise obscure term. It does not, however, distinguish this from nearby IAM siblings such as hcloud_list_users, hcloud_list_groups, or hcloud_list_policies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the many other IAM list tools in the sibling set, and no stated preconditions or scope. The agent must infer that 'agencies' are IAM identity-provider trust relationships on its own.

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