servicebus_list_namespaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains subscription resolution and error handling if no subscription is available, giving useful context about prerequisites and failure modes. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, though it's implied.

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 very concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential context about subscription resolution and error behavior. Every word adds value.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema (context signals indicate output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior, including subscription resolution and error cases. It is complete for the intended use case.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the guidelines. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the subscription is automatically resolved, which is relevant to using the tool. No parameter explanation is needed.

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 all Azure Service Bus namespaces') and the scope ('in the current subscription'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like servicebus_list_queues and servicebus_list_topics which deal with entities within a namespace.

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 guidance on when to use the tool and how subscription resolution works (environment variable vs az login). It implicitly differentiates from other servicebus tools by focusing on namespaces, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives.

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