list_file_systems

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.