Compute Services List Compute Pools

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that each row carries quoted_name and quoted_qualified_name, but this duplicates what the output schema presumably documents, so the extra value is modest.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly misplaced since it describes return fields already covered by the output schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, so its second sentence is redundant. The critical gap is the unexplained 'pattern' parameter, which is documented nowhere else.

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 single parameter 'pattern' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry its meaning — yet it never mentions pattern at all. An agent cannot tell whether it is a SQL LIKE pattern, a regex, or a name filter.

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 and resource: lists SPCS compute pools. The scope is clear, though sibling differentiation (e.g., vs. compute_services_describe_compute_pool) is only implied by the 'list' verb and not stated explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus compute_services_describe_compute_pool or how to filter results. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration call and that describe is for details.

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