list-annotation-configs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool lists configs and returns an array, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is obvious.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences plus an example and expected return. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the purpose and expected return, but it omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter, which could lead to misuse. The missing parameter description is a notable gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'limit', and the tool description fails to mention this parameter at all. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which already defines default and constraints. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'List Phoenix annotation configs' and explains what annotation configs are, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and specific. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on annotation configs as opposed to datasets or prompts.

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 provides an example usage ('Show me all annotation configs') which implies when to use this tool, but it does not offer explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare it to alternative siblings. The context is implied but lacks clarity for the AI agent to make an informed decision.

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