list_vcns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the trimmed summary vs. raw output toggle and compartment scoping, but does not address pagination, exact fields in the summary, error behavior, or permission requirements. These gaps make it adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and immediately explains the key behavior (trimmed summary vs. raw). No redundant words or filler.

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?

The tool is a straightforward list operation with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains the purpose and raw behavior, and the schema documents all parameters. It could mention default region behavior, but the schema covers that, so no major 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions compartment and raw=true, but these are already fully described in the schema. It adds no new parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb (Lists), specifies the resource (Virtual Cloud Networks), and scopes it to a compartment, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_vcn. It also highlights the raw=true output behavior, adding clarity about what the tool returns.

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 provides clear context: this is for listing VCNs in a compartment. It implicitly differentiates from get_vcn (which fetches a single VCN) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Thus it has clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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