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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavioral trait 'has capacity now' and explicitly states the fallback result {'found': false} when nothing matches. This goes beyond the schema and gives useful runtime expectations.

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 short sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second lists filters and the no-match return behavior. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 query tool with four optional parameters, the description covers all filters and the failure return. Since an output schema exists, the successful return shape does not need to be spelled out. The main gap is the absence of explicit sibling differentiation, but overall the callable details are sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: each of the four filters is listed, and gpu_contains and region get concrete examples ('H100', 'us-east-1'). The semantics of min_gpus and max_hourly_usd are reasonably inferable from their names plus the filter context.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('cheapest instance type that has capacity now'), immediately distinguishing it from list-only siblings like list_instance_types or get_instance. The mention of availability/capacity makes the purpose concrete.

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 context through 'has capacity now' and the filter list, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over list_instance_types or other siblings. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are named.

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

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 conveys a read-style lookup but does not mention authentication requirements, not-found behavior, potential errors, or whether any side effects exist.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes operational meaning, and its length is appropriate for a one-parameter lookup 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 is simple and has an output schema, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, the description alone leaves gaps around failure behavior and access requirements, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds only 'by id,' which mostly echoes the parameter name instance_id. It does not clarify the expected format, where the id can be obtained, or any constraints on the value.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of one instance by id.' It clearly distinguishes this single-item lookup from siblings like list_instances by emphasizing a single instance and an identifying id.

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 intended usage is implied: call this when you have an instance_id and need details for exactly one instance rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, so routing is left to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states a read-only action ('List') and the resource, which is adequate for a simple list operation, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or account-scoping. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant detail or filler.

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 no parameters, a clear action/resource statement, and an output schema already present, the description is complete enough. It could mention that it returns all persistent file systems, but the schema and simple nature make that omission minor.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema shows. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description appropriately does not mention parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('persistent file systems'), making its purpose immediately clear. It is distinctly different from sibling tools like list_instances or list_images, so no ambiguity remains about which resource is targeted.

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 the tool is used when you need to list file systems, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives. The resource name alone is enough for basic inference, but the description lacks explicit routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation but gives no detail on whether images are region-scoped, whether public/private images are included, or if there are any side effects. This is minimal and under-informative.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and resource compactly, which is appropriate for a simple list operation.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, the presence of sibling list_regions raises ambiguity about whether the listing is region-scoped or global, and 'available' is not clarified. This is a moderate gap in an otherwise simple tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which the schema already reflects. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, so the baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools applies.

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 'List available machine images' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying its purpose. It is intuitively different from sibling tools like list_regions or list_instances, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself or clarify what 'available' means in context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies you use it to see available machine images, but offers no prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario-based direction, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a read-only listing and narrows scope to running instances, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, rate limits, or whether instances across all regions are returned. Functional but incomplete.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states exactly what the tool does with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the scope is presented before anything else.

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 zero-parameter list operation with an output schema and clearly differentiated siblings, the description is largely sufficient. It could be improved with explicit usage guidance and behavior notes, but an agent can correctly select and invoke the tool from the current description.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description's 'running instances' scope is the only relevant filter and is clearly stated.

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 verb and resource: 'List your running instances.' The 'running' qualifier and 'instances' resource clearly differentiate it from siblings like list_images, list_regions, and get_instance. It is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. It implies 'use when you want running instances,' but it does not explain how to choose between this and get_instance or other list tools. Context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling names.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating the sort order ('Sorted from cheapest') and data content (price, specs, capacity regions), but it does not explain the default scope (all types vs only available) or mention the read-only nature, which is only implied by 'list'.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It communicates the key elements—resource, content, and ordering—quickly and efficiently.

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 1-optional-param tool with an output schema, the description covers the core output and ordering. However, the lack of explanation for the only_available parameter is a notable gap that could lead to incorrect invocation, especially when the default false vs true changes results.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the only_available parameter. The phrase 'regions that have capacity right now' hints at availability but does not explain how the parameter filters results, leaving the agent to guess its behavior.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List Lambda Cloud instance types') and enumerates what is included: price (USD/hour), specs, and capacity regions. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_instances (user instances) and list_regions by focusing on instance types with availability details.

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 purpose implies when to use it (to see all instance types with price/specs/capacity), and the context is clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast with cheapest_available_instance or state when only_available should be true, so it falls short of explicit alternative routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's purpose and adds no information about read-only intent, pagination, rate limits, or authentication. The term 'list' weakly implies a safe read operation, but the description adds no transparency beyond the name.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficient to convey core purpose. The output schema covers return details, and the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for additional context. Minor gaps like authentication are likely shared across sibling tools.

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 contains zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool applies; the description cannot add more because no parameter semantics exist.

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 clear verb ('List'), a specific resource ('regions'), and identifies the provider ('Lambda Cloud'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools that list images, instance types, instances, SSH keys, and file systems, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about when it is appropriate, and no exclusions. While the name implies a straightforward list operation, there is no explicit or implicit guidance beyond the literal action.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, but it does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether results are paginated, or how empty accounts behave. The core behavior is transparent enough for a simple list tool, but some operational context is missing.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains exactly the necessary information: the action, resource, and scope. There is no redundancy or filler, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter list 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 is simple with no parameters and it has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The statement fully scopes the operation to the account's SSH keys, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed; the empty schema is fully self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('SSH keys saved in your Lambda Cloud account'), making the operation immediately clear. It also stands apart from sibling tools like list_images and list_regions, so an agent can tell which resource is being targeted.

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 when to use this tool by naming the exact resource, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since the sibling tools cover different resource types, the intended usage is largely inferable.

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