sigsci_list_cloudwaf_instances

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'list all', which implies a read operation, but does not specify if results are paginated, ordered, or what data is returned. No details on rate limits, destructive potential, or idempotency.

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 sentence, very concise, but it lacks essential details. While brevity is valued, the tool's purpose and context are under-specified. Better structure could include key behavioral hints upfront.

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 no output schema and a single parameter, the description should explain the return format or typical use case. Currently, it does not specify what 'CloudWAF instances' are returned (e.g., names, IDs, status). This undermines completeness for an agent selecting the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (corpName described in schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it neither contradicts nor enriches the schema.

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 action (list) and resource (CloudWAF instances) with scope (in a corporation). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'list_agents' or 'list_sites' by specifying the unique resource type. However, it could be more precise about what constitutes a CloudWAF instance.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. For example, it doesn't mention if the user needs specific permissions or how to find the corpName.

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