list_solutions

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description earns credit for adding real caveats: bounded paging stays inside the current query scope, and returned rows are not proof of deployment. It still says nothing about result ordering, completeness signalling, or what a bounded page omits.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the filtering capability comes before the caveats. The phrasing 'native solution identity/state' is compressed to the point of being slightly opaque, which keeps it short of 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 8 parameters, 0 required, and no output schema, the description covers scope and caveats but not what fields rows carry or how paging limits interact with 'top'. Enough to call it, not enough to interpret results confidently.

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 coverage is 38%, so the description must compensate. It groups the three filter families (unique name, ID, managed) but adds no syntax beyond what the schema patterns already say, and it leaves top/maxPages semantics to the schema-only descriptions.

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 and resource: 'List native solution identity/state'. That distinguishes it from siblings that inspect, verify, export, or import solutions. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the scope is unambiguous enough to select correctly.

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?

'with optional exact unique-name/ID/managed filters' tells the agent which filters select a narrower query, and 'Visible rows are not deployment validation' implies verification should go to verify_solution_deployment. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not-to-use condition is given.

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