archery_list_query_instances

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 uses '查询' (query), which strongly implies a read-only operation, and specifies the account/resource-group scoping. It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but for a list operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the verb, object, and scope. There is no redundant information or filler, making it optimally concise and front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless list tool with an output schema available. The description fully explains what the tool returns and its scoping constraints. There are no missing details that would hinder an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to explain, and the description still adds context about the implicit scope (current account's resource group and read-only-query eligibility).

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 a specific verb ('查询'/'query') and resource ('实例'/'instances'), and adds a precise scope: instances in the current account's resource group that allow read-only queries. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'archery_list_instances', which likely lists all instances without that filter.

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 when to use the tool: when you need instances that are permitted for read-only querying in the current account's resource group. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, providing only implied usage context rather than explicit guidance.

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