hcloud_list_agencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the action and resource, omitting any information about read-only nature, required permissions, pagination, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs a read operation.

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 very short and front-loaded, consisting of a single phrase. While concise, it could be slightly expanded with essential context without losing efficiency. The current length is acceptable but minimal.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is functionally adequate. However, it could provide more context, such as clarifying that agencies represent trust relationships and that this is a read-only operation. The lack of any annotation increases the need for description completeness.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. The parenthetical explanation adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, but no deduction is warranted.

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 specifies the action 'List' and the resource 'IAM agencies', with a parenthetical explanation '(trust relationships)' that adds context. However, it doesn't elaborate on what an agency is or how it differs from other list tools, but it is sufficiently specific among many sibling list tools.

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 list tools, the agent would benefit from knowing, for example, that this tool lists trust relationships while other tools list users or policies. The description gives no such direction.

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