list_file_systems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by parameter and return sections. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two required parameters. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context, which are needed for effective tool invocation.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'compartment_id' is an OCID and 'availability_domain' is a name, which clarifies the parameter types beyond the schema's string types. However, it doesn't provide format details or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 File Storage file systems') and the scope ('in a compartment and availability domain'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file_system' (singular vs. plural), though the 'list' prefix implies a collection operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_file_system' for retrieving a single file system or other list tools for different resources. It mentions the required parameters but doesn't explain usage context or prerequisites.

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