balena_list_fleets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only adds scoping context. It usefully notes that unrelated public fleets are excluded, but adds no other behavioral details beyond what annotations and the schema already convey.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the essential purpose without fluff. Every phrase adds meaningful scoping information, making it appropriately concise.

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 read-only list operation, the description gives the essential scope and relies on annotations for safety. However, it omits any guidance about pagination semantics, optional filtering by parent_id, or output shape, and there is no output schema to fill those gaps.

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 only 33%, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining top, skip, or parent_id. The parent_id field has a schema description, but top and skip lack semantic explanation in both the description and schema, leaving pagination semantics to inference from parameter names and constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List fleets') and immediately clarifies scope: only fleets associated with the authenticated user, excluding unrelated public fleets. This distinguishes it from broader fleet queries and sibling tools like get_fleet or list_organizations.

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 clearly states when this tool is appropriate: to list fleets tied to the authenticated user. However, it does not explicitly call out alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the user-scoped context is sufficient for basic routing.

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