list_oke_node_pools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format in detail, which is helpful, but lacks critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by well-organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's scope, the Args section clarifies parameters, and the Returns section details output. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (list operation with filtering), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description does a decent job but has notable gaps. It explains parameters and return format well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, pagination, errors). For a tool with no structured metadata, it's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'compartment_id' is an 'OCID of the compartment' and 'cluster_id' is an 'Optional OCID of the cluster to filter by', providing crucial semantic context that the schema alone lacks. This effectively compensates for the schema's deficiency, though it doesn't cover all possible parameter nuances.

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 specific action ('List all node pools') and resource ('in a compartment'), with explicit scope ('optionally filtered by cluster'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_oke_node_pool' (singular retrieval) and 'list_oke_clusters' (different resource type), making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('List all node pools in a compartment, optionally filtered by cluster'), which implicitly distinguishes it from tools like 'get_oke_node_pool' (for single node pool details). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives beyond the filtering hint, missing full explicit guidance.

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