list_compartments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'accessible to the user', hinting at permission-based filtering, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or output format. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (a list operation with many sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, pagination, or how 'accessible' is determined, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in context.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of parameters.

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 action ('List all compartments') and the resource ('compartments accessible to the user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_tenancy_info' or 'list_oci_profiles', but the verb 'list' and resource 'compartments' provide enough specificity for basic clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_tenancy_info', 'list_oci_profiles'), the description lacks context about whether this is for general compartment discovery, permission checks, or other use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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