list_gpu_shapes

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safe read-only behavior. The description adds that it lists shapes with pricing, but lacks details on output fields or pagination. With annotations present, the description adds moderate value but could be more transparent about return format.

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 are front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value with no redundancy. Efficient and direct.

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 description covers the listing action and filters but omits output format details (e.g., fields like name, price, region). Since no output schema exists, the description should compensate by describing return values. Default behavior and pagination are also missing.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds helpful examples of GPU model values (A10, A100, etc.) not provided in the schema, and clarifies the useCase enum. This augments the schema meaningfully.

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 'List OCI GPU shapes with pricing' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_gpu_shape_details (singular detail) or recommend_gpu_shape (recommendation) by focusing on listing multiple shapes.

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 implies usage for listing shapes with optional filters (GPU model, use case). However, it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_gpu_shapes or get_gpu_shape_details, which limits clarity for correct tool selection.

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