list_cloud_sql_instances

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

The description only states the basic function and return type. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether instances are returned with full configuration or just summaries, whether pagination is used, or whether specific IAM permissions are required. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and falls short.

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 short and uses a structured Args/Returns format. However, it is slightly redundant: the first sentence says the same thing as the Args and Returns sections combined. Despite this, each sentence earns its place and there is no unnecessary fluff.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description covers the basic purpose, parameter, and return value. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should also clarify the scope of results (e.g., all instances in the project) and any access prerequisites. As is, it is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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 schema provides only 'project_id' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description explains the parameter as 'The ID of the GCP project to list Cloud SQL instances for', which adds minimal context beyond the parameter name itself. It does not clarify format, required role, or any constraints, but it does offer some semantic meaning.

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 'List Cloud SQL instances in a GCP project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_sql_instance_details (which focuses on a single instance) and list_compute_instances (which targets a different resource).

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. For example, it does not mention that get_sql_instance_details should be used for detailed information about a single instance, or that list_assets might offer broader asset discovery. The description assumes the agent already knows when to call it.

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