cpu_list_my_lots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that evicted lots are included by default, explains what evicted means, notes the session requirement, and shows how to isolate evicted lots with state=evicted. This goes beyond simple 'list' phrasing and reveals non-obvious behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage, then a subtle behavioral exception. Every sentence earns its place, and the evicted-lot clarification is valuable rather than 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 read-style listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers session requirements, filtering, the default inclusion of evicted lots, and the intended use case, so an agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already documents the single optional state parameter with enum values, default behavior, and the evicted-lot nuance. The description adds no material parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 the lots you have created' with an explicit lifecycle-state scope. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like cpu_list_lots by emphasizing ownership ('my lots'), making the intended target 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?

It gives clear practical usage: 'Use this to find your lotIds and track listing and return progress.' It also states the precondition that a session is required. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as cpu_list_lots.

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