list_vpc_subnets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation. It does not explain the effect of folder_id, whether the list is scoped globally or per folder, or any pagination/return format details. The behavior is implied but not explicit.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 is simple, but the presence of an optional folder_id parameter and lack of output schema or annotations means the description should provide more context about scope and filtering. It does not, leaving the tool under-specified for effective 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%, and the description does not mention the folder_id parameter at all. The agent has no semantic understanding of what folder_id means or how it affects the results, leaving the parameter completely unexplained.

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 'List all VPC subnets' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('VPC subnets'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_vpc_networks and list_vpc_security_groups. It states exactly what the tool does with no ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the optional folder_id parameter or any filtering behavior. The description is purely functional and lacks context for tool selection.

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