list-instances

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. The description only states 'Get the list of instances', which doesn't reveal any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are paginated (implied by 'limit' and 'offset' in schema but not described), or what happens on errors. For a tool with complex filtering parameters, this lack of transparency is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Get the list of instances'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. For conciseness alone, it scores perfectly as it uses minimal text to convey the core idea.

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?

Given the complexity (1 parameter with 12 nested properties, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'instances' are in this context, how filtering works, what the output looks like, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool that likely returns a list of instances with multiple filter options, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 0% (based on context signals), meaning parameter descriptions in the schema are absent or minimal. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond the basic action. With 1 required parameter ('query') that contains 12 nested properties for filtering and pagination, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters largely 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 'Get the list of instances' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'list-instances'. It provides the basic verb ('Get') and resource ('instances'), but doesn't specify what kind of instances (e.g., application instances, service instances) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get-instance' or 'list-apps'. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks specificity.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for listing resources (e.g., 'list-apps', 'list-services', 'list-deployments'), but the description doesn't explain why an agent would choose 'list-instances' over these or how it relates to 'get-instance'. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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