list_all_intents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It states the return type (JSON string) and that it lists intents, but does not disclose that it is a read-only, safe operation. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit safety or side-effect disclosure.

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 two sentences and a return doc, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful for an agent.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary context: what it does and what it returns. No gaps remain for a simple list operation.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. According to guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate as the description correctly implies no arguments are 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 tool lists all available intents in the control plane, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('intents'). Among siblings like 'get_intent' (single) and 'create_or_update_intent' (mutate), it distinguishes itself as the broad listing tool.

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 notes the tool is useful for discovering existing intent types and names, giving clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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