list_yandex_clouds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, does not clarify the meaning of 'all accessible clouds', and does not mention permissions or pagination. The phrase 'in organization or all accessible clouds' is vague about what happens when organization_id is null.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to the core purpose. This is appropriately concise for a list-type tool.

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 appears simple (1 optional parameter), but the description lacks crucial context: the exact effect of organization_id, the meaning of 'all accessible clouds', and what the response looks like. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has insufficient information to handle edge cases or understand the tool's behavior in different organizational contexts.

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 sole parameter (organization_id) has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It references 'organization', which likely maps to organization_id, but it's not explicit that providing organization_id filters results to that organization while omitting it lists all accessible clouds. This adds partial meaning but leaves ambiguity.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('clouds'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_virtual_machines and list_yandex_folders. The phrase 'in organization or all accessible clouds' hints at the optional organization_id parameter but doesn't explicitly state the conditional behavior, which slightly obscures the full scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_cloud_details_info should be used for detailed cloud information, or that list_yandex_folders is for folders. The only implied usage is the generic purpose of listing clouds, with no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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