infomaniak_list_vps

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds useful context by disclosing the 'Manager-private' access requirement and that it returns billing and flags, which goes beyond annotation metadata. No contradiction.

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 highly concise: two sentences front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact field list, a usage note, and an access flag. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity list tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, key return fields, when to use it relative to a sibling, and access context. There is no notable gap in what an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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% and the single parameter (account_id) is already well-documented in the schema with guidance to discover via infomaniak_list_organizations. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists VPS (Cloud Server, Jelastic-managed) products of an organization, enumerates specific return fields (id, customer_name, internal_name, etc.), and distinguishes itself from sibling infomaniak_get_vps_full by serving as the id-discovery step.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this before `infomaniak_get_vps_full` to find the id of a specific server, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention any exclusion cases or alternative listing tools, so it lacks a full when-not-to-use contrast.

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