infomaniak_list_public_cloud_projects

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action, such as pagination behavior, return format, or that it only returns projects for the specified product. It neither enriches nor contradicts the annotations.

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 succinct sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is properly front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the object. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices potentially useful context, though conciseness itself is commendable.

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 the tool has only one required parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks contextual guidance about prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a public_cloud_id via 'list_public_clouds') or the typical workflow of listing projects before fetching individual project details. The annotations and output schema cover some gaps, but the description alone does not complete the picture.

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 0%, and the description does not mention 'public_cloud_id' at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify what constitutes a 'Public Cloud product' or how to obtain the ID, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the name alone.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), scoped to 'a Public Cloud product'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_public_clouds' (lists clouds) and 'get_public_cloud_project' (singular project) by using plural 'projects' and the 'within' preposition, though it could more explicitly name the required public_cloud_id parameter.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_public_cloud_project' for details on a single project or 'list_public_cloud_project_users' for project members. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., first listing Public Cloud products to obtain an ID) or exclusions.

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