aap_list_instances

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the scope (controller and execution nodes) and return type, but does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, authentication requirements, or the structure of the returned JSON. It provides modest additional context beyond the annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and a brief return note. No unnecessary words, though the 'Returns:' line is somewhat redundant given the output schema. Overall, it is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description provides adequate context about what is listed and the return type. The main gap is the unexplained required 'params' parameter, but this does not detract significantly from the overall clarity for a straightforward listing operation.

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 has one parameter 'params' which is an empty object (HealthInput with no properties), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent unaware that a required 'params' object must be passed (even if empty). There is no compensation for the missing schema descriptions, so parameter semantics are completely unaddressed.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List all AAP controller and execution node instances.' It fully distinguishes this from sibling list tools (e.g., aap_list_organizations, aap_list_users) by explicitly naming the resource type and its 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?

The description implies usage for listing instances but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like aap_get_instance_capacity or aap_get_controller_health. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites, so usage context is only implied.

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