bare_metal_list_bare_metal_plans

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List available bare metal plans' and 'Returns: List of bare metal plans,' which merely restates the function name and expected return without mentioning pagination, authentication, rate limiting, sorting, or any side effects. This adds no value beyond what the name implies.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose statement and a structured Args/Returns section. However, it is under-specified; the sentences are essentially tautological to the name and schema, providing little new information. It is efficient in length but lacks substantive content.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return format is covered) and the tool is simple (one optional parameter), the description misses critical context: it does not differentiate from bare_metal_search_bare_metal_plans, does not explain what 'plan_type' values are acceptable, and never mentions any behavioral aspects. Given the rich sibling set and lack of annotations, this is incomplete for confident use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for undefined parameters. It explains plan_type as 'Optional plan type filter,' which is a minimal semantic improvement, but it does not specify allowed values, how filtering behaves, or the format of the filter. This slight clarification earns a 2, but it falls short of adequately describing the parameter.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List available bare metal plans.' It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like bare_metal_search_bare_metal_plans because 'list' indicates a broad enumeration whereas 'search' implies criteria. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar plan-listing tools (e.g., plan_list_plans), so it relies on the name for differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bare_metal_search_bare_metal_plans, plan_list_plans, or other filtered listers. It neither states the intended use case nor mentions exclusions or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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