get_gcp_idle_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It describes what it identifies (idle VMs and unattached disks) and implies a read-only analysis, but it does not explicitly state that it only scans and returns results, nor does it disclose permissions, side effects, or output format. The core behavior is clear, but details are missing.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose and resource types. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally explain the return value and any prerequisites. It describes the purpose but omits output details, usage guidance, and behavioral specifics, leaving gaps. However, the schema is well-documented, and the purpose is clear, so it is minimally complete but not rich.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions and defaults for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by distinguishing compute (low CPU) from disks (unattached), but it does not clarify how min_idle_days applies to disks, leaving some ambiguity beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies idle GCP Compute Engine VMs and unattached Persistent Disks that are wasting money. The specific verb 'identifies' and resource targets make it distinct from broader siblings like get_idle_resources and get_azure_idle_resources, which are named in the sibling list.

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 GCP idle resource detection through the tool name and 'GCP' mention, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling names like get_azure_idle_resources suggest scope, but the description itself offers no explicit guidance.

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