federation_list_instances

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

Annotations already convey read-only and idempotent behaviors. The description adds that health status is included, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential behavioral details such as pagination or caching, but given the simplicity of a list operation with no parameters, the coverage is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It specifies the scope (configured instances) and the included information (health status), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly omits any.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all configured Prometheus and Alertmanager instances with health status', making it specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on individual components.

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 provides clear context for use (listing federation instances) and the sibling tools are all either Prometheus- or Alertmanager-specific, so the agent can infer this is the correct tool for federation-level queries. No explicit exclusions are needed.

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