List AMP 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 correctly discloses the query nature (enumerate, returns) and specifies the returned fields. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is always safe. The description is adequate but could add more behavioral context.

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 sentences: first sentence states the action and scope, second lists the return fields. No redundant or extra information. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description enumerates the return fields sufficiently. For a simple listing tool, this is complete. The sibling tools provide additional context, making the tool's niche clear.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond stating what the tool returns, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool. The schema coverage is 100% (no parameters), so no extra description is needed.

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 tool enumerates instances and lists specific return fields (InstanceID, name, module type, running state, parent target). This provides a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual instance details or console output.

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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose (list all instances), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools (e.g., amp_get_instance_status), the context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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