list-insert-options

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it names the backing field (__Masters), explains inheritance from the template's standard values, defines the Kind values ('Branch' copies a subtree, 'Template' creates one item), and explicitly discloses the key limitation that insert rules are not evaluated on SitecoreAI CM. It even notes where unresolved IDs surface (Unresolved).

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause before adding the __Masters mechanics and the caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; only mild verbosity in the parentheticals keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the row structure (Kind, Unresolved), which is genuinely helpful. A caller still lacks detail on the exact row shape and ordering, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents path, itemId, database, and language. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what is structured, 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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (insert options configured for an item), then clarifies exactly what those options are: the templates and branches that may be created under it. This is clearly distinguishable from adjacent siblings like authoring-get-item-template or list-site-components.

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 scenario of use is implied (determining what may be created beneath an item), but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it name any alternative tool. It is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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