yougpu_list_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the list includes both active and terminated history, which is a non-obvious behavioral detail. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, response format, or any implicit constraints beyond the scope. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated, leaving some gaps.

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 sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately concise.

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 and no output schema, the description should provide enough context to use the tool correctly. It clarifies the result scope but omits essential operational details like pagination (page/limit), default limits, and what fields each instance includes. This is insufficient for a no-annotation tool with two undocumented parameters.

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 input schema has no descriptions for the two parameters page and limit (0% coverage). The description does not reference these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions. It only explains the result scope, not how to control pagination or limits.

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 and resource: 'List YouGPU instances'. The parenthetical '(active and terminated history)' specifies the scope, distinguishing this tool from siblings like yougpu_list_gpus (GPU catalog) and yougpu_list_offers (offers). This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or related tools such as yougpu_get_instance for single-instance details or yougpu_create_instance for provisioning. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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