list_vnic_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the default return behavior ('trimmed summary') and how to opt into the full object ('unless raw=true'). This is a meaningful behavioral trait, though it does not cover other aspects like pagination or permissions.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then add the key behavioral note about raw mode. Every word earns its place; no redundant information or padding.

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 has no output schema, so the description's mention of the return format ('trimmed summary' vs 'raw') is valuable. It covers the essential context for a list operation, though it does not address when to use it relative to sibling tools, which is a slight gap given the abundance of list tools.

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's mention of 'compartment' and 'instance' filter echoes the schema but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 ('Lists') and the resource ('VNIC attachments'), scoped to a compartment with an optional instance filter. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like list_instances or list_vcns, as VNIC attachments are a distinct resource type.

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 context (compartment scope, optional instance filter) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. While it's clear what the tool does, it lacks explicit guidance on when it should be preferred over related list tools.

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