List flavors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results are scoped by project visibility and field units are stated (MiB for RAM, GiB for disk), but it says nothing about ordering or auth/permission behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and what the fields mean. The second sentence mostly restates the paging parameters already in the schema, so it is slightly redundant but far from wasteful.

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 simple, zero-required-parameter list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient: scope, field semantics and paging are all addressed. Only ordering of results and any permission requirements are left unstated, which are minor gaps here.

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 100%, so limit, marker and project_id are already fully documented in the schema, including the next_marker paging convention and the get_scope pointer. The description mentions limit and marker but adds no syntax or defaults beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List flavors') and enumerates the attributes returned (vCPUs, RAM, disk), which tells an agent exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_images or list_servers, though the collection-per-resource naming makes disambiguation largely self-evident.

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 (list the flavors visible to the project) and notes the result is paged, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and names no alternative tool. Given there is no get_flavor sibling, the implied usage is at least unambiguous.

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