list_shapes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (list with specifications) but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand 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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics (purpose, parameter, return format) adequately. However, without annotations or output schema, it misses behavioral context like safety, permissions, or detailed output structure, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 explicitly documents the single parameter ('compartment_id') and its purpose ('OCID of the compartment'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal coverage (0%). Since there's only one parameter and it's fully explained in the description, this compensates well for the schema gap.

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 compute shapes') and resource ('available in a compartment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_instances' or 'list_images' beyond the specific resource type, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selecting shapes, or how it relates to other tools like 'get_instance' or 'list_instances' that might involve shape selection, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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