infomaniak_list_public_cloud_resource_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content scope but no additional behavioral details such as pagination, response format, or rate limits. This is acceptable given the annotations and output schema, but no extra transparency is provided beyond what the schema implies.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and examples. No filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 simple with one enum parameter, an output schema is present, and annotations cover safety. The description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and content scope. It could be slightly more explicit about the role of the 'resource' parameter, but the enum and examples leave little ambiguity.

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 single 'resource' parameter is well-defined by its enum in the schema, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by listing example values (regions, packs, types, Kubernetes versions), though it does not explicitly map these to the parameter or mention all enum values. More explicit guidance could improve semantics.

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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Public Cloud configuration and service catalog data' with concrete examples (regions, packs, types, Kubernetes versions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list actual projects, services, or resources.

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 for when to use this tool: when needing configuration or service catalog data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on catalog/config versus actual resources (as seen in sibling tool names) gives implicit differentiation.

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