List OCI resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: results are projected to identifying fields by default, and a tenancy-wide scan when compartment is omitted tags each row with its origin. Return-shape detail is left to the output schema.

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?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs with no filler; the primary purpose leads and secondary behaviors follow. Efficient and readable, though slightly more verbose than a single tight paragraph would need to be.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, projection behavior and the omitted-compartment case. It leaves the list-vs-search boundary unstated, which is the main remaining gap for a tool with three siblings.

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 high (80%), so the schema already documents limit, verbose, compartment and resource_type. The description largely restates the verbose and compartment semantics that the schema already provides, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (OCI resources of a single type), and enumerates the service families covered. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like oci_search or oci_get, so the agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives conditional guidance for two parameters (pass verbose=True for full objects; omit `compartment` to scan the whole tenancy), which is useful in-context usage. However, it never states when to reach for oci_list versus oci_search or oci_get, leaving the sibling routing to inference.

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