List Provisioning Configurations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are sorted by price (lowest first) and that it is a read-only listing operation. No destructive behavior is implied. It could mention pagination or limits, but overall is transparent.

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 with no wasted words. The key action and usage instruction are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 15 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on the return structure (e.g., fields in each configuration) and pagination. It mentions configurationId but does not fully prepare an agent for handling the response. This is a noticeable gap.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by summarizing the filter categories and highlighting key behavior (sorting, output usage). This goes beyond simply restating schema fields.

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 it lists available server configurations with filtering by multiple criteria. It mentions specific resources (region, CPU, memory, etc.) and the sorting order. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only provisioning configuration listing tool.

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 explicitly tells users to use the configurationId from results when calling provision_server. It provides clear context for filtering, though it does not specify when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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