audit_gcp_waste

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It explains scanning across all zones/regions, use of Cloud Monitoring for CPU, and estimated savings sorting. It does not mention destructive potential, which is reasonable for a read-only audit tool.

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?

Highly concise yet complete: a clear opening sentence, bulleted Args, and practical examples. No filler text; 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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers inputs, defaults, and output type (findings sorted by savings). It does not specify the exact output structure or limits, but is adequate for a scanning 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 has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description includes an Args section detailing each parameter's purpose, default values, and accepted sub-checks. Examples further clarify usage, adding significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 it performs a deep GCP waste audit scanning specific resources (disks, IPs, snapshots, idle VMs) across all zones/regions and returns sorted savings findings. This differentiates it from sibling tools like audit_aws_waste or other specific audits.

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 implies usage for identifying GCP waste but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like scan_waste_patterns or run_full_cost_audit. No exclusion conditions or alternative tool names are provided.

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