timeweb_list_vpcs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates a read-only listing behavior and account scope, but it does not disclose pagination defaults, return format, or other behavioral details. The verb 'list' does signal non-mutation.

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 or redundancy. It conveys the core purpose clearly 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 straightforward list operation with three optional, fully documented parameters and an existing get_vpc sibling, the description is adequate. It states the resource and account scope; though no output schema exists, the description could mention pagination but the schema covers the related parameters.

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 describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including ranges and format enum. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the schema already provides adequate semantics, so the baseline 3 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?

Description states 'List all Virtual Private Clouds (VPCs) in the account' with a specific verb and resource scope. It distinguishes from sibling get_vpc by signaling collection-level listing rather than a single VPC lookup.

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 'list all' phrasing implies use when enumerating VPCs, and the account scope gives context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_vpc for a single VPC or when not to use this tool.

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