archery_list_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses permission filtering and pagination behavior, which is useful, but it does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, or return format (though output schema exists). It adds some context beyond the schema but lacks explicit read-only confirmation.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no extraneous words. Efficient and clear.

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?

The description captures the core purpose and scope, and an output schema exists to define returns. However, the missing search parameter explanation and lack of behavioral details (e.g., authentication, error conditions) leave the description incomplete for safe and correct 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%, so the description must compensate. The term 'paginated' suggests limit and offset semantics, but the search parameter is left unexplained. The description does not clarify how search filters results, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 tool performs a paginated query of database instances accessible to the current Archery account, specifying both verb and resource. The permission scoping and pagination help distinguish it from sibling tools like archery_list_query_instances and archery_list_databases.

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 implies usage for listing accessible instances but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as archery_list_query_instances or archery_list_databases. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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