iaas_get_all_custom_names

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP path — no pagination behavior, no result ordering, no note that it returns across all projects.

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?

It is very short and front-loaded, but the second line simply repeats the endpoint path that already appears in the annotation title, so it contributes little. Not verbose, but under-specified rather than efficient.

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 simple single-parameter list endpoint with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It still leaves open whether results are paginated or tenant-wide and how it differs from the project-scoped sibling, which an agent would need in this large toolset.

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?

Only one parameter exists and its schema description coverage is 100%, so the apiVersion format is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get All Custom Names") and the word "All" implicitly distinguishes it from the singular iaas_get_custom_name sibling. However, it never names the sibling or clarifies the relationship to iaas_get_custom_name_by_project_id, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this listing versus iaas_get_custom_name or iaas_get_custom_name_by_project_id, and no mention of prerequisites, scoping, or filtering. The agent must infer the choice purely from the tool name.

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