cycles_list_reservations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, lacks pagination details (despite cursor and limit parameters), and omits default filtering behavior. Only minimal behavioral info is given.

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 concise sentences: first describes action and filters, second gives use cases. No redundant words, front-loaded with key information.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output format, pagination behavior, or parameter interdependencies, leaving many important aspects unspecified.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It explains the 'status' enum values (ACTIVE, COMMITTED, RELEASED, EXPIRED) and vaguely mentions 'subject fields', but provides no explanation for the other 9 parameters like app, agent, limit, cursor, etc.

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 action 'list' and the resource 'reservations', and mentions optional filters by status or subject fields. It distinguishes from siblings like cycles_get_reservation (single retrieval) and cycles_reserve (creation).

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 explicit use cases ('debugging stuck reservations or auditing budget usage'), giving context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond implied sibling distinctions.

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